Should We Be Blogging About the "Jena 6"?:
I'm with Glenn Reynolds on this. I'd really like to blog about the case, and I spent about 30 minutes this morning trying to research it, but I couldn't get a good enough sense of what the facts are or what the precise cause of the protest is to really know what to make of it. Wikipedia has the best summary I could find, and it seemed to suggest that the problem was a decision by prosecutors to overcharge a case in an environment of severe racial tensions. Specifically, the state charged one juvenile as an adult and initially charged him with attempted murder even though there was no evidence of that intent (and then dropped it to assault with a deadly weapon, even though the evidence of a deadly weapon was questionable). But I did find it hard to get a sense of what was going on, at least so far. As Glenn puts it, "The signal-to-noise ratio [isn't] that good."
UPDATE: I had missed this summary by Radley Balko, which is very helpful.
UPDATE: I had missed this summary by Radley Balko, which is very helpful.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Sunday Song Lyric:
- TalkLeft on the "Jena 6":
- Should We Be Blogging About the "Jena 6"?:
It's quite plausible that there is injustice in the case, but I have this gut reaction of distaste to people trying to convince me based on emotion not backed by real evidence. The only arguments I see to support the Jena 6 are bad ones. That doesn't preclude the possibility that there are good arguments, but why is everyone using bad arguments if good ones are available?
Does he really think that the animus of the black kids in this war is really equal to those of the white kids? Is he really trying to equate the actions of the Jena 6 with the guys who hung up the nooses for real, so many decades back, even in spirit?
Disgusting. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the only other plausible reading is he thinks his readership is a bunch of racists who would be okay with Balko's description.
It's also wrong that the prosecutor has charged white kids who've beaten up black kids in the past few weeks with only minor offenses. I think that's what really has the black community in Jena upset - the lack of equal treatment for black and white criminals.
What I'd really like to know, though, is why he didn't just charge the Jena 6 with a hate crime? Beating a white kid cause he's white - that sure sounds like a hate crime to me. Ditto for the white kids beating up black kids. What are hate crime statutes for if not stuff like this?
Just once I would like to see a minority charged with a hate crime? Color and sexual persuassion should have nothing to do with the way someone is charged. If the facts are the same the charge should be the ame.
Anti-white crime gets a lot less media attention than anti-black crime. Which is why it's easy for someone to say "just once" even though it's not true.
This relates to Prof. Reynolds comment. In context I imagine he meant would there be great uproar if a bunch of white kids were overcharged after an assault like this. Which is a much more reasonable question to consider than Justin's interpretation.
Do you dispute Balko's description? I'm not sure if you do. If so, can you set us straight and tell us what really happened?
Something stinks. I'm afraid that Jena is not an exception. There is a lot of stinking matter in the way criminal justice is carried out in this country. Beginning with the police, by way of the porsecution on to the courts. All that with tacit approval by the public.
For example, I have a big problem with charging a shoplifter with burglary, which is allowed in Illinois. On the other hand, the timeline of events seems to suggest ever-escalating tensions and actions, and the district attorney may have wanted to send a message. Whether intentional or not, his "message" seems to have stopped the violence in Jena.
I am also having a problem finding a credible source for information about the Jena 6. If, for example, somebody would report what injuries the African-American male had from the "beer bottle" attack, as well as the criminal history of the beer-bottle attacker(s), that would be helpful.
I could then compare those injuries and criminal histories to the injuries and criminal histories involved in the alleged beat down of the white victim. Then, if the situations were similar, but the charges were different, there would be a serious question in my mind about prosecutorial misconduct and the equality in charging crimes. Since the media is not reporting that information, I am very suspicious. I saw how the PC media reported the Duke Hoax case.
Politically, it is shaping up to be a big issue. Jesse Jackson has been very quotable about the situation, including the following:
Jena News
I agree with Obama's position that charging attempted murder was uncalled for (based on the apparent facts) and that over-charging has occurred. With this over-charging, the DA set himself up for the appearance of impropriety. I need more credible information to reach any conclusions, however, except that Jena ain't no Selma.
I don't consider myself a regular but I'll bite, I would say 6-12 months in state pen or juvie, depending on the age of the defendant. This is an aggravated offense, in that there was some level of premeditation (in other words, not a random testosterone fueled engagement between two meatheads over a girl) and due to the 6 on 1 engagement...again, not "boys being boys" but a beatdown. I don't think race matters, whether it was white on white, white on black, black on white or black on black. Whoever engaged in these acts are going to have future meeting with the justice system in the future until they change their ways.
I don't think they should face anything more than that and the attempted murder charge is indefensible but unless you follow the "race war" defense its an offense that is punishable more than a suspension.
2. The second problem is the selectivity of the overcharging. Blacks, not whites, were targets of overcharging when white students (a) started it and (b) did worse. The white kids who left the nooses should have been reported to the FBI. The white kid with the shotgun should have been reported to local police. All four should have been expelled.
3. The third problem is we're talking about a bunch of kids. If the school district had properly disciplined the white kids who started it, this unfortunate situation would not even exist. On that note, we're in the weird situation of arguing about whether the prosecutors stepped in to overpunish blacks when the real argument should be about why the white kids weren't punished properly in the first place. Kids need discipline. Why we let dangerous white kids run rampant is mind-boggling.
Bingo. When the authorities don't punish privileged offenders, then the unprivileged folks become more likely to resent and lash out against those who got off scot-free.
You have to be intentionally misreading instapundit. He's asking how people would act if a white kid beat a black kid unconscious with a shoe and was charged with murder.
I read that question as: in that case would Al and Jesse be asking for reduced charges - or would they be agitating for the death penalty.
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was about the right to vote and access to public accomodations -- lunch counters, buses, etc.
Now, its about the right for a gang to beat the crap out of someone and not get punished too heavily for it.
My how times have changed.
Is that really so? What's the crime? It strikes me as mere free expression -- granted in extremely poor taste, and worthy of condemnation, but a federal hate crime?
I am really bored and unimpressed by this kind of indifference. At the very least, the kids should have been expelled. They can join a KKK rally on their own free time, once they are no longer students.
And if you want another example of stacking of charges against a black man, how about O.J.?
But this presumably differs from the Duke LAX case in that in that case, the prosecutor not only charged racially, but did so knowing that he couldn't make the case. In this case, the prosecutor presumably could have convicted on the charges, he just appears to have made then in a racial way.
Maybe, because the prosecutor may also have overreacted in response to a worsening situation in order to shut it down. Maybe, or maybe he was just a good-old-boy engaging in racist behavior. Don't know.
The prosecutor claims he said it to the whole student body. Other witnesses said he was looking specifically at the black students.
This doesn't make me trust his prosecutorial discretion.
Sorry to bore you, but the kids WERE expelled. This was then reduced to a three-day suspension, which I agree is too lenient.
Still has not answered my question -- what is the hate crime here?
First I know virtually nothing about this particular case, but for thought...
In the State of California for example if you were involved in a 6 on 1 fight that involved stomping on someone and you personally stomped on them, instead of just yelled "yeah beat the crap out of them" you'd almost certainly be good for the crime of "Assault by Means Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury" a violation of PC 245(a)(1). A violation of that particular code section is enumerated in Cal. Welf. and Inst. code 707(b). That means that a minor who commits this offense at the age of 16 or 17 could be direct filed with no real recourse for the minor. Absolute prosecutorial discretion. Also, if the DA chose they could set it for fitness and the minor would be presumed unfit and would most likely not be found to be appropriate for juvenile court meaning even the court would have a hard time choosing to keep the case if the prosecutor chose not to direct file.
Also, if someone was kicked unconcious that would be easily a 12022.7 enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury easily adding an exposure of up to 7 years. And the line between that an attempt murder can easily be fuzzy.
I thought it was well understood that only whites could be charged with hate crimes. They're the only ones that hate, aren't they?
I was and am aware that the principal initially took the correct action. That is why I criticized "the school district", not "the principal".
It was a 3-day in-school suspension. They were never actually expelled from school or, to my knowledge, barred from school premises.
I said they should have been expelled and reported to the FBI. The boy who brought the shotgun, I said, should have been expelled and reported to local police. I didn't make any further argument than that.
I cannot see what is criminal about the noose incident. (Although it certainly is a basis for expulsion from school -- free speech in school has its limits, and this is well beyond those limits.)
To say, well, we don't know enough is a cop out, especially when this web site continues to obsess over the plight of some white skinned young men who were at Duke University.
So count me as one that says whether one discusses one at length without wanting to discuss the other is possibly motivated by political and perhaps even racial biases. And that goes for Al Sharpton as much as anyone at Volokh Conspiracy or Glenn Reynolds or his commenters.
What is this with suspension and expulsion? A good proportion of kids don't want to be at school. Suspending them or expelling them only rewards their behavior.
If you really want to punish them and change their behavior, do something serious, like some physical punishment, or put them in a labor gang or something like that.
That might make sense with regard to suspension, particularly in school suspension. But being permanently barred from school premises, being un-enrolled from that school, and having the discipline on your permanent record is no fun. Expulsion is not fun. You might not graduate high school. You might not graduate high school on time. It is harder to get into college. And it is harder to do any number of things, such as be admitted to the bar, later in life.
At a minimum, the school district, police, and prosecution have made some egregious errors, and the community has tolerated some really seriously wrong attitudes and behaviors from its youth (apparently for a while: a "whites only" tree? What the heck?) I feel bad for all the kids at that school (actually, the whole town) -- but now at least ten of them (three for the noose incident, one for the shotgun incident, and these six boys) have crossed the line from being victims of their circumstances to active perpetrators, in the criminal sense of the word (I can see the kids who put up the noose just getting expelled and charges along the lines of criminal mischief/disturbing the peace, but then, I also think hate crime legislation is counterproductive, so.)
Bottom line: it's a bad situation. None of those ten boys should spend ten years in prison for it, though.
I think someone here is divorced from reality. The kind of boys who use violence to solve their (perceived) problems do not care about being admitted to the bar. Baring an enormous upheaval in society where even more rogues are admitted to law school, they are not getting into law school and are probably more worried about getting into their favorite gang. Heh, being expelled from school is likely one of the entrance requirements.
I don't remember any 17 year olds at all who were worried about their C&F test. I certainly did stupid things as a 17 year old (nothing that stupid, granted, but I was also never challenged with the unique circumstances that these kids were), and I'd like to believe I'm a more than capable and moral lawyer.
Any details on this? Or did someone just imagine it and tell it to me?
Per the Wikipedia article Orin linked:
This is a remarkably ignorant statement. In my law school class, many had previous arrests or run-ins for stupid pranks, drunken antics, and so forth. Many also had fights that never resulted in arrests. All are practicing lawyers, many in BigLaw.
And, stop calling these kids a gang. They were a bunch of athletes being taunted in the school cafeteria. Jocks are pretty easy to get riled up in high school. That doesn't make them Crips, or whatever nonsense you're implying.
You went to NYU?
Seriously, major call on BS here....I wasn't "Joe Cool" in law school but I got to know everyone in my section and a good part of my class in general, and I knew of ONE person who had an arrest record and he was so embarassed about it that it was known only among a few people (I found out about it because some dimwit blurted it out during Thursday night bar review after a couple of pitchers). You went to a law school where "many" people had arrests and still ended up at Biglaw? Do ya think their potential employers were a bit concerned about their character evaluation?
If you're going to make up arguments, do it right. Like this: "I'm the lord Jesus Christ. I think I'll go get drunk and beat up some midgets."
I don't think you can lump them all together. The black kids reacted because the white kids got off. The real issue is why the prosecutors, state and federal, and the school district, let the white kids off. It just doesn't make sense. I don't care what their race is, I don't want anyone racially intimidating my kids at school or drawing guns on them. That's crazy.
1) Nobody was 19. Facts are useful. There were 3 17 year old freshmen.
2) Nobody considered the Decatur guys boy scouts. Nobody argued they were provoked. Nobody argued that there were racial overtones to the violence itself, only to the punishment. Decatur was a debatable question about whether race was relevant. Race PERMEATES Jena.
3) Nobody was injured in Decatur, and the question was whether expulsion was severe enough. Apparently, a fight is enough to expel you, racially intimidating the black minority of a class and pulling on gun someone is just boys being boys.
I assume people didn't tell you about their arrests. I suspect most people in law school were not arrested. But Juliana's point were that alot of her law class mates had done petulant/violent behavior that doesn't end up in arrests - and this point is very well taken.
Full disclosure: I was arrested when I was younger, when a cop called one of my friends the N word and pushed him, and he was stupid enough to push back. The charges were dropped.
No, this isn't made up at all. Indeed, one dude was worried that being subpoenaed for downloading music via Napster would interfere with his C&F. And a girl in one of my classes got a weird ticket that resulted in a fine while on vacation during her 3L year and was worried about it. The fact of the matter is not all of these run-ins resulted in documentation that would pop up on a background check. An arrest by campus security isn't really an arrest, apparently. Etc., etc. There are a lot of lawyers who broke the law before they entered law school. You must be living in crazyland if you think no practicing lawyer has ever toked a joint. And no, I am not talking about myself. But, no, I knew no one who was arrested for a serious violent crime. At most, we're talking bar-fighting where no one was seriously injured, getting drunk in public, or some dumb prank, like pissing on someone's lawn. Not all arrests result in reports and not all run-ins are arrests. But the point is, being expelled does result in documentation, so can be worse for you than toking a joint that no one knows about.
Then give your kids guns to take to school. People won't mess with them after that.
I hunt. I used to be a member of a shooting range. You're an idiot.
Ahhh, so because some white kids got lesser sentences than they should have, it was ok for 6 black kids to beat a white kid senseless?
That's a great sense of justice you have there. Remind me not to let my kids associate with your kids.
So, someone who used to be a member of a shooting range does not think he/she can teach their kids how to handle firearms?
Are you for real or are you the idiot?
No. First, the white kids received no sentences at all. That is not "less than," it is zero. Second, the point is you cannot evaluate each event abstractly because it takes them out of chronological order. X caused Y. Intervening quickly to deal with X would have prevented Y. Evaluating Y as if it did not happen because of X is to ignore reality.
someone who used to be a member of a shooting range does not think he/she can teach their kids how to handle firearms?
Remarkably enough, I don't think teens should be bringing guns to high school. I was a member of a shooting range as an adult.
Juliana Klovquist, apparently.
"6-on-1 stompings are beatdowns. But, people, that's what schoolyard fights are nowadays, which is exactly why you keep your mouth shut lest it be stomped shut for you." - Juliana Klovquist, 1st Amendment Absolutist.
One of the six black kids arrested for assault had two prior battery convictions. I'm not sure what white people did to provoke those incidents.
While I recomend everyone read his complete article, just one part of the timeline - the nooses on the tree incident happened three months before the white guy was attacked.
Lessons from Jenna
2. It isn't prudent to walk into a biker bar and start talking about how all bikers suck turds. A beatdown by bikers is an obvious risk. Fighting words aren't traditionally protected speech, either.
3. The First Amendment is compatible with dueling. It is not compatible with threats of lynching and threatening unarmed students with a shotgun, both of which warrant indictment.
18 USC, Part I, ch. 13, sec. 245, if you are correctly citing that as the basis of what could have been an FBI action, doesn't seem to apply here. The parts that appear relevant are b.(2)(A) and (B). But for (A), they had to have intimidated him BECAUSE he is or has been enrolling in or attending public school. From what I remember, they allegedly intimidated/threatened him not because he was attending the school, but because he was about to sit where they wanted to sit (like if a white comp sci major wanted to sit where the jocks always sat).
As for (B), he wasn't being intimidated/threatened for enjoying a benefit/privileged administered by a State or subdivision; unless you can go so far as to say that tree and the shade it provided were, etc.
See here
"No, never, we never trust the man, we are colorblind" you all screamed. "We don't trust anything the MSM tells us and never jump to conclusions, we are always willing to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the color of their skin or their economic background."
This prosecutor is just another Nifong. It's amazing how you can just ignore the fact that after this poor kid received a supposedly near fatal beating (bad enough to justify attempted murder charges) he was treated and released from the hospital and was well a enough to attend a school function just a few hours later.
Oh and btw, the Court of Appeals has overturned the first conviction, and ordered the release of the defendant, after the prosecutor refused to offer bail.
Since the tree was on school grounds, I think you most certainly can say it was. How would it be different than if there were certain restrooms that were implicitly off-limits to blacks?
"J.F. Thomas" -
*This prosecutor is just another Nifong. It's amazing how you can just ignore the fact that after this poor kid received a supposedly near fatal beating (bad enough to justify attempted murder charges) he was treated and released from the hospital and was well a enough to attend a school function just a few hours later*
But just what is your point of comparison of the Jena case to that in Durham? That the defendants in both cases allegedly attacked an individual of another race?
Is that it?
Let alone that, what is the basis of your statement that the Jena prosecutor was engaged in "misconduct"? Did he withhold evidence from the prosecution that showed the defendants were not culpable in the crime? Did he conspire with other law enforcement officials in this effort to railroad the accused? Did he exploit this case in order to gain reelection in his constituency? did he do anything at all that would compare with the conduct of Nifong?
From what I read on Google (as you advised), I don't see any reference to that at all. The complaints from those who see this case as "injustice" is that the prosecutor brought more serious charges - attempted murder - against the accused that the critics believe is justified - and that one of the defendants at least was a juvenile at the time of the crime, but was prosecuted in adult court.
I hardly think an attack by six individuals upon one person constitutes a "schoolyard fight"; there is, in any case, absolutely no doubt that the assault in Jena took place (unlike in Durham) - only how it was disposed of by the prosecutor.
In fact, the response to this case on the part of those who criticize actually shows up the culpability of the so-called Durham 88 in creating a lynch mob mentality, as the authors of the book excerpted at the VC state.
After all, did 88 academics in Louisiana sign a statement urging that the "Jena Six" be prosecuted for their crime, or urge vigilante-style "protestors" to "not wait" for the mechanisms of due process to be completed, before coming to conclusions about the guilt of the accused?
The answer is, of course not. On the contrary, the "Jena Six" are the recipients of a great deal of support among academics (including one of these who signed the "Durham 88" ad!), as quoted by the New YOrk Times and other mainstream media posted on Google News - even though no one actually questions their guilt. Soon enough, Jena will be the locale to as many as 30,000 people who will come to smear the town's residents as `racist' and everything else...
Also, as far as I know, the charge of attempted murder is not dependent upon the extent of injuries of the victim; perhaps the law is different in Louisiana (and someone could speak to this), but injuries may be used as *evidence*, but otherwise is irrelevant to a charge of attempted murder.
(Parenthetically, it appears that the story about "white nooses" on trees only came out AFTER the individuals were charged...)
"J.F." and the rest is is the best you can do, I think you've struck out.
I agree somebody who has been convicted of multiple assaults should be let out on the street. Oh and I'm not talking about the six-on-one beating this case is about. Read the article Davod linked above. If even half of Jason Whitlock's article is true, then comparisons to the Duke case are laughable -- and people are being played.
hail the left-wing noise machine!
Let's see: the Jena 6 were convicted of knocking a white kid to crowd, and stomping him. Now, perhaps they were overcharged on this, but no one is disputing that a violent criminal assault took place.
Mike Nifong prosecuted three men for a rape that he knew didn't take place.
And you think these are equivalent situations? Only to a liberal.
Where on earth did you pick up this tidbit of misinformation?
You're right, extent of injuries isn't dependent on the extent of injuries (e.g., shooting at someone with the intent of killing them and missing is attempted murder), but in the case of physical battery, the extent of injuries is certainly indicates the intent of the batterer. When six people beat on someone and that person is treated and released from the hospital (i.e., isn't even kept over night for observation even though the victim and the prosecutor later claim he suffered serious head injuries), and is well enough to attend a function just a few hours later, the argument that the batterers intended to kill the person but failed in their attempt (the legal definition of attempted murder) rings hollow.
Tell me, if some guy raped you because some other woman had mistreated him and was never punished, would you regard that as an adequate reason for your rapist to be charged with a lesser crime such as loitering?
Liberalism is fundamentally racist, because it argues that each of us is not an individual, but only a symbol of our race. Hence Juliana making excuses for six black kids to beat up a white kid because some other white kid did something wrong.
Juliana must be a law professor somewhere to believe such dangerous nonsense.
It may well be that the prosecutor overcharged this, but let me point out that if they had shot at this young man, with malice aforethought, but the bullets only grazed him, and he was out of the hospital several hours later, "attempted murder" would be a valid charge.
They were charged with an attempted murder that did not take place. A white kids had previously committed an assault with a deadly weapon (I know you consider such behavior appropriate) that was not charged--in fact the black kid that disarmed the white kid who threatened him with the shotgun was charged with theft of the shotgun.
The beating was the final act in a string of incidents where white kids committed crimes, got away with them, and black kids who were either defending themselves or committed minor crimes were punished, their concerned ignored, or charged with more serious offenses.
Certainly the Jena 6 committed battery -- the complaint about prosecution is not that they're being prosecuted at all, but that prosecutorial discretion is being applied in a racially biased fashion. But with respect to the intent of the assault -- the victim was in a fight with six people, leaving him at one point unconscious and unable to effectively resist. And yet his ultimate injuries were a black eye and a concussion, mild enough to allow him to attend a school event the same day. It's a pretty safe conclusion that the kids he was fighting with didn't intend to hurt him any worse than they did, given that they had the opportunity to hurt him much worse, and didn't take it.
The below quotes are rom the Jason Whitlok story in the KC Star cited above:
"Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span."
"A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before."
"Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black."
By the way, hard to take seriously someone who within minutes says both:
and then
The white kids are dangerous but the blacks are decent. Maybe both are dangerous?
One more thing to note, the FBI did investigate the noose incident and the Black US attorney decided that it did not meet the hate crime criteria. Is it even remotely possible that this was a good faith determination?
But they didn't shoot at him, they beat him, and let up after he went down with no more than minor injuries. Obviously they did not intend to kill him. Therefore there was no malice aforethought.
It sure might have an effect on the decision of what to charge the kid with, though. Also, since one of the big complaints in the original post is that there's not a lot of solid information flying around the fact that one of the attackers had multiple convictions for violence at the tender age of 17 is certainly relevant. Well, at least as relevant as tales about the racially charged atmosphere of Jena.
2. It isn't prudent to walk into a biker bar and start talking about how all bikers suck turds. A beatdown by bikers is an obvious risk. Fighting words aren't traditionally protected speech, either.
Too bad that's irrelevant. According to accounts, he wasn't attacked until well after he'd taunted Bailey, and even then from behind and by someone else. And mere offensiveness (as offensive as taunting a possible racist and confirmed thug for getting beaten up by another race can be) doesn't count.
3. The First Amendment is compatible with dueling. It is not compatible with threats of lynching and threatening unarmed students with a shotgun, both of which warrant indictment.
I think characterizing an (admittedly racist and stupid) prank as a 'threat of lynching' is clearly stretching it.
The shotgun incident, while serious, isn't clear cut -- the white student asserted that the black students ganged up on him and he produced the gun to protect himself. The students had been beaten up at a party he'd attended, and he could plausibly assert that they were looking to revenge themselves on someone present. The only witnesses who say otherwise are involved parties, and given the propensity of the media to omit things like 'multiple previous battery convictions' securing a conviction (assuming that the white student did indeed threaten them) might well have been impossible. Is it any surprise that the prosecutors threw up their hands and went after the only provable crime?
It was not, however, "attempted murder." The DA should have charged all of these cases as juvenile offenses for those under 17, and since there appears to have been no serious or longlasting harm to the victim they should have been charged with misdemeanors.
No, it is not a justification for the beating. What it does is demonstrate the bias of the prosecutor. He ignored the crimes of the white students and overcharged the crimes of the black ones. Has anyone argued the six should not have been charged as juveniles with battery?
'Minor injuries' being a concussion, a mangled jaw, and being blind in one eye for three weeks. It's pretty clear from the specific accounts that the beaten kid was an idiot who thought that going to a ceremony was more important than his injury; he had to leave anyway regardless through due to the pain.
He went back to his truck to get his shotgun. I don't think even the most adamant supporters of the "Castle doctrine" say that when threatened, you have the right to retreat from a dangerous situation to retrieve a firearm and deliberately place yourself back in harm's way once you have plucked up some 12-gauge courage. Maybe Clayton can enlighten us since he is such a tough guy.
Seriously?
Those purported injuries contradict the length of his hospital stay. He is exaggerating the extent of his injuries. A concussion alone would have warranted an overnight stay in the hospital for observation, let alone losing the sight in one eye--that implies some serious damage to the optic nerve and/or brain. There is no way he would have been released.
If you don't believe a black stripper in Durham in the face of contradictory medical evidence, why should you believe him.
He (and Al Sharpton) have managed to change the subject! Let six people go who attempted to kick someone to death !
It's just like Duke, damn it!
and the VC follows right along!
Now, I don't have the full story and neither do you, but that means that I wouldn't rely on the prior conviction to mean anything at all much.
I would like you to find one statement of mine where I said I was "fine" with the prosecutorial misconduct in the Duke case. I have said all along the Duke case was appalling. I just said that most of the prosecutorial misconduct in this country is directed at poor and minority people and that the people who were so concerned about the Duke victims would deny or ignore it when the victims were poor or minorities.
Don't cover your hypocrisy by accusing me of it. I predicted this a couple days ago in the Duke thread.
care to rack up any more misstatements and lies about my viewpoints while you're at it?
Maybe it was. But we had a poster claiming out-of-hand that the prior conviction(s) was irrelevant.
You can say "possibly relevant" and then look closer to figure out if those earlier convictions have prosecutorial abuse
But once you summarily dismiss them as "irrelevant," well, that's it, you're done, because you don't look closer at irrelevant things.
I know it's in debate about whether the white kid was kicked while on the ground (and we'll probably never know, because both camps have biased witnesses).
But it seems to be a factual determination as to his injuries. We can just look at the hospital's report.
So what does it say?
My point (which I made very clear) was that the lack of overnight hospitalization alone does not demonstrate that attempted murder was overcharging. It is possible that they did not attempt to kill him, or that they lacked malice aforethought. Those are factual questions to put before a jury. I agreed that it is possible that the prosecutor overcharged the case--but the mere fact that the victim didn't spend the night in the hospital does not mean that attempted murder was an invalid charge to have filed.
I can understand concerns about a failure to adequately prosecute previous racial incidents. But this liberal enthusiasm for treating six thugs who attacked and beat up one other kid at school as "victims" really shows how hate-filled and racist liberals are. If the situation were reversed--if six white thugs beat up a black kid because some other black kids had been punks--liberals would be screaming "racism" and doing their best Mike Nifong impressions.
I can't imagine what sort of person has two convictions for assault at 17. Other commenters here have indicated that this is very typical for people in law school. Fortunately, most Americans have higher moral codes than that.
Sorry guys, sometimes truth has to out.
Doing it six on one means six people tried to beat someone to death.
Thousands of people marched to say that it should be cool to kick someone in the head six on one because they are a different race than the criminals.
The only way that going back to your truck, getting a gun, and returning the confrontation can be legally justified is if you are returning to protect another party from imminent danger. If he wasn't doing that, then any use of deadly force coming out of that would be almost impossible to justify--and would be incredibly stupid.
I'm not "such a tough guy." That's why I own a gun--because if were in liberal paradise, with six guys trying to beat me up for being the wrong color, a gun makes it possible for me to defend myself. (Doubtless why liberals support disarming victims--so that we can learn to atone for the crimes of our race.)
Or it could be the result of the same sort of racially motivated prosecutorial overcharging that looks to be going on here. The point is that without the underlying facts, we don't know which way it cuts.
Oh, this went on for a half hour? No, I didn't think so.
There's considerable misunderstanding of the level of violence that causes death. A lot of people think, from watching movies, that you can hit someone on the head with a club, and they wake up an hour or two later with a headache. No, frequently they die, or end up with brain damage.
Were they interrupted in their attack? Did they each kick him a few times? You are right--it is hard to know exactly what their motives were. As I have said several times, the prosecutor may have overcharged this. But the mere fact that the kid didn't end up in the hospital overnight doesn't make attempted murder clearly overcharging.
It is fascinating watching liberals make excuses for this kind of violence--as long as it is directed against someone for the crime of being white. Just like they justified Nifong's prosecution of a crime that did not happen (unlike this beating, which did) because the prosecution was of white people.
And all you can come up with is Jena? You were asked, by me, by many others, what is the exact comparison with the judicial lynching at Duke, and you've come up with anything...
Ignore this troll (who won't give a real email or www) unitl he at least comes up with something instead of just making noise to change the subject...
The story I've gotten from my friends* (who are fairly typical of white opinion in Northern Louisiana) is the black kids sat under the white kids' tree, and everything that's happened since is exactly what those uppity n*****s deserve. The story in the newspaper here is approximately the same, minus the racial slur.
In Northern LA, when they think no one's watching, people act like it's 1955. That's what you have to keep in mind as you read the coverage.
*Why am I friends with bigots? Because I go to a university that's 85% white, I'm in a major that's 95% white, and it's easier from a social perspective to just keep my mouth shut and my head down. Not a very brave answer, I'm afraid.
This is an entirely new meaning of "irrelevant" to me. We can't discuss them?
Maybe it's explained by "in the context of this story," though. What do you mean by that?
(In fact, if it turns out that those prior convictions were the result of prosecutorial abuse, they're extremely relevant to this case.)
If the first of these crimes had been by blacks, and by the time it escalated to this six on one stomping the crime involved white thugs, no one would be screaming that the prosecutor was a racist, or had overcharged it. We would recognize that an escalating problem was finally being treated with the severity needed to stop the cycle of violence.
Don't know much about how medicine is practiced today, uh? They'll throw you out of the hospital as soon as they possibly can today and do everything inhumanly possible to keep the stay under 24 hours.
That's totally unacceptable, and probably constitutes a threat of violence.
I can understand how they might feel intimidated by all the protesters pouring into town, but it's still not acceptable. Just like it's not acceptable for six black kids to beat one white kid because they're being intimidated by the weak prosecution being applied against white kids.
I'm not saying that the victim did not later exaggerate the extent of his injuries--but the fact that they took a while to appear doesn't make him a liar.
My wife was in a traffic accident many years ago in which she turned a full-sized Ford station wagon into a compact. She was frightened by what happened, but she felt fine that afternoon. The next morning, however, she was in enough pain that I took her to the emergency room. It was basically a bad bruise caused by the seatbelt--and it took overnight for it to become painful.
Will the ACLU be defending the driver's right to freedom of expression? I mean, if nude dancing is protected, and burning the American flag is protected--why not nooses on your car? Or will liberals decide that racism trumps freedom of expression?
I disagree. If six black students had been arrested with some top charge for a hanging white guy figure when the first incident was let go--then your view would be accurate.
No matter what object was hung from the tree and what was done about it, booting victims in the head six on one is a whole different level of crime.
The protesters demanded the six criminals be let loose because they thought the crime didn't deserve punishment.
I was an MP in the army doing law enforement work for a year (long story). What Clayton said happens a lot.
I used to always try to convince auto accident and head and neck injury assault victims to go to the hospital even when they could walk.
Many times that night or the next day things end up being a lot worse than they thought.
1) Attempted murder is a specific intent crime. You can't accidentally attempt to murde