| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 27.09.2007 16:53 |
link |
| Music Man 27.09.2007 17:15 |
Apparently, if you gang beat someone, it's okay if they provoked you with racially-charged gestures. Edit: Apparently the attacks weren't even provoked. The kid was just jumped by six students, and suffered substantial injuries. Past history is irrelevant - this was a felony. |
| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 27.09.2007 17:37 |
yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree also |
| Music Man 27.09.2007 17:58 |
colfarrell1 wrote: yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree alsoAlthough this is irrelevant information, there were either 2 or 3 nooses hung from the tree three months prior to the attack in question. It is publicly unknown who the students responsible for the nooses were. |
| LozlanTheMage 27.09.2007 19:10 |
Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour. Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane). |
| Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 27.09.2007 19:13 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour. Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).I agree with you |
| Music Man 27.09.2007 22:40 |
LozlanTheMage wrote: Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour. Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious? I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't. I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut. Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case. Anyway, this kid has a history and is unlikely to be reformed, and it is just sad - 2 battery convictions (one for punching a 17 year old girl in the face), and 2 convictions of criminal damage to property. Keep in mind that this is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. However, we're not talking about an innocent child who just happened to get caught up in a gang beating. It was premeditated, preemptive, and criminal. People act like they should be exculpated, to which I have only this to ask: what the fuck? |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.09.2007 11:02 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Apparently, if you gang beat someone, it's okay if they provoked you with racially-charged gestures. Edit: Apparently the attacks weren't even provoked. The kid was just jumped by six students, and suffered substantial injuries. Past history is irrelevant - this was a felony. <font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.colfarrell1 wrote: yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree alsoAlthough this is irrelevant information, there were either 2 or 3 nooses hung from the tree three months prior to the attack in question. It is publicly unknown who the students responsible for the nooses were. We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there. But I digress; 'the blacks' attacked 'the whites' in the form of a group of upset, scared people who were not being rational attacking a defenseless person, who was nevertheless part of the group they were threatened by. Again, let me stress that we do not know if there was a provocation, so we cannot pass any judgement whatsoever over that. Then there is the justice system, which is the matter that is really important. The DA illegally held a suspect in custody. When his conviction had been overturned, and he was not released, the DA committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE by refusing to release him. What his motives are, we can only guess about, but only one motive is truly believable: revenge. He was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group. Do not kid yourselves; Jim Crow-law is not dead, it has merely gone underground. What we see here is not the whole of the story, something which is, like context, as close to a historical axiom as we can get: the media only give you snapshots of the moment. It is merely the release of overpressure on a system, because only overpressure makes it into the media. The system is white supremacy, and that is the key theme of this incident. Conservatives like Music Man of course do not want to draw this conclusion, and thus they go for what they see is feasible. That is certainly possible, and it does not require the least bit of lying. It does involve not telling the *whole* truth (meaning: ignoring the context as described abover, and leaving out the background, the second axiom, and finally monocausality, as anything other than the criminal nature of the act is ignored, which is not justice). They do not necessarily conceive of it as such (namely: a pseudo-truth), but it does serve an important agenda to them: there is no racism in the system. It is very important to the Right, to say that there is no racism in the system. Not only that, they must, preferably, also believe it themselves. You see, if there would be racism in the system, the system would have faults. If it has known faults, it is improveable. And that exactly is the problem: if the system turns out decisively proven imperfect and at least in part fixable (as there is a concrete fault discovered) at the same time, they have no justification for a policy to change as little to tradition as is possible. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.09.2007 11:14 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post).LozlanTheMage wrote: Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour. Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious? I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post). I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post. Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post. Anyway, this kid has a history and is unlikely to be reformed, and it is just sad - 2 battery convictions (one for punching a 17 year old girl in the face), and 2 convictions of criminal damage to property. Keep in mind that this is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.Sir, if I didn't know very well that I have morality on my side in this discussion, I would now swear at you for this dirty trick. Indeed this is irrelevant to the case at hand! Still, you name it. Irrelevant information for the case under discussion, as you said yourself. But you name it, because it will again put emotional weight on your side of the story, regardless of the fact that this is emotion immaterial to the present topic. But you are trying to mislead the public into buying into your flawed side of the argument by diverting attention yet again. However, we're not talking about an innocent child who just happened to get caught up in a gang beating. It was premeditated, preemptive, and criminal. People act like they should be exculpated, to which I have onl |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 12:00 |
Folks, what you don't understand is that it's a different mind-set in the deep south. The Klan is still alive and well and they don't have bones about letting people know. You saw a few days ago the a couple of them drove around during the protest march with nooses hanging from their pickup. While that kind of shit shouldn't be allowed, unfortunately it happens and everyone around knows it. There are certain places white folk shouldn't go, and certain places black folk shouldn't go. I wish it wasn't still 1960 in some places, but that's just how it is. Remember, the students went to the administrators to ask permission to hang out where the white kids hang out. They knew it was going to cause a problem. They didn't care about the big picture. So is it right for capital charges to be pressed? Yes, because this was a premeditated act. Those 6 kids knew they were causing a problem in the first place. The white kids didn't ask to hang out at 7-11 in the ghetto at 2a.m. Why did the black kids want to hang out under that tree on that particular day? That we will never know, thanks to Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the protestors, and all the BS that has come with what should have been a simple hate crime. Edna Thompson knows the game. "The best thing, if you're black in this town, is to stay out of the system, because once they get you, you're done for. You're not getting out," Edna Thompson, a longtime friend of the Bells, said later. You can always move to a more civilized place, but if you live in the mean streets, better be prepared to play the game. |
| Mr.Jingles 28.09.2007 12:11 |
Isn't anyone else sick how the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and all the black leaders have turned African American leadership after Martin Luther King Jr. into a fuckin' joke? First it was O.J, then Michael Vick, and now Jena 6. Let me tell you something, if MLK was still alive today by no means he would defend a criminal. All he would ask for is for a fair trial. It doesn't matter for what reasons those 6 kids were provoked. It doesn't matter if this kid that was nearly beaten up to death was a white supremacist. What matters is that those 6 kids took justice in their own hands when they should have reported the incident with the nooses to higher authorities. Let's not forget that the white kids are also guilty of a lesser crime, but a crime nonetheless. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.09.2007 12:19 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: All he would ask for is for a fair trial....which, incidentally, they aren't getting in the heart of the Confederate country. People, quit staring yourselves blind on the details and focus on the bigger picture: this is merely the explosion of deeper tensions which need to be mended before any progress can be made. |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 12:23 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context. We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.Hold on a second, font color Crimson Quinn. It is you who is wrong here. The Black kids went to school administrators asking for permission to sit in the White Zone. So whether you recognize the "rules of the Street" or not, those 6 kids knew: 1. exactly what they were biting off 2. Nooses had been hung there before 3. Nooses would be hung again 4. They could start an uprising by staging this So maybe you should learn about Southern life before you start quoting Jim Crow laws, font color Quinn. You don't live here, and you, Sir, have no idea about this way of life. They can't teach you that in a classroom. |
| Music Man 28.09.2007 12:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there."Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: But I digress; 'the blacks' attacked 'the whites' in the form of a group of upset, scared people who were not being rational attacking a defenseless person, who was nevertheless part of the group they were threatened by. Again, let me stress that we do not know if there was a provocation, so we cannot pass any judgement whatsoever over that. [/quote] While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed. What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Then there is the justice system, which is the matter that is really important. The DA illegally held a suspect in custody. When his conviction had been overturned, and he was not released, the DA committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE by refusing to release him. What his motives are, we can only guess about, but only one motive is truly believable: revenge. He was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group.If what you say is true, then I concede that this is unjust, and that the DA should be criminally liable. Of course, your surmisation that "he was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group" is completely baseless, to say the least. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.09.2007 12:40 |
Micrówave wrote:To summarize: "them blacks crossed white turf and knew what they was gettin' into. Serves 'em right, an' we don't care about injustice, we care only that we's afraid they'll start an uprising".ThomasQuinn wrote: If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context. We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.Hold on a second, font color Crimson Quinn. It is you who is wrong here. The Black kids went to school administrators asking for permission to sit in the White Zone. So whether you recognize the "rules of the Street" or not, those 6 kids knew: 1. exactly what they were biting off 2. Nooses had been hung there before 3. Nooses would be hung again 4. They could start an uprising by staging this So maybe you should learn about Southern life before you start quoting Jim Crow laws, font color Quinn. You don't live here, and you, Sir, have no idea about this way of life. They can't teach you that in a classroom. You squire, are defending bigotry. Apartheid. Jim Crow. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.09.2007 12:49 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it. "Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed. While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying. What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write? If what you say is true, then I concede that this is unjust, and that the DA should be criminally liable. Of course, your surmisation that "he was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group" is completely baseless, to say the least.What I say is not only true, but verifyable. Go to CNN if you wish to check it. My "surmisation", as you call it, or "likely motive" as I call it, is as I explicitly stated no more than an educated guess, but the most probable one. So apparently, based on nothing, you assume that white supremacy reigns supreme in this area. Despite your admittance that the media cannot fully inform us of the situation, I wonder how you can be so sure of this claim. I am not saying that your scenario is false, but I am saying that it is not based on any objective grounds. Only objectivism matters. Anything you assume or any scenarios you envision do not.I'm lost for words. You make no sense whatsoever, I have completely proven everything you claim I haven't. Since you seem to be easily confused concerning political affiliations, let me introduce myself. I am not conservative - I am classically liberal. You may better know my type as Libertarian. We operate under the premise of absolute negative fre |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.09.2007 12:52 |
I would just like to point out, for all of the people who are crying racism on behalf of the police department and the DA, that the prosecuting attorney in the case of Jena 6 is an African American; I believe the DA for the county is also African American. The Jena 6 are also African Americans. I believe this is relevent information for the conversation....as it's clearly not a case of white power abusing these poor African American kids...the power in this case is also an African American. Discuss |
| Music Man 28.09.2007 12:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Perhaps you can point out how my comparison is not parallel?<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post). <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:My true stance? If you break the law, you will be prosecuted and punished under the law by the criminal justice system. There was no legal justification for the attacks. The end.I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post). <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:No one is defending the attack? Then what is this conversation about? If this conversation focused strictly on the miscarriages of justice, then so be it. You made a perfectly valid point (although I haven't verified it, it was a good point) concerning the injustice committed by the DA before. If this conversation were about that, that would be good. However, since most of the conversations is revolving around justification of the attack, it's simply ludicrous.I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I was discrediting a previous accusation of a mishandling of justice. The main theme is the mishandling of justice. So far, the only point given in the entire thread up until that point was that concerning the 20-year prison sentences. I quickly discredited that claim, and I simply await more, to either verify or disprove. The theme is clear, and you simply have not gotten to it. There is only this: Was there a mishandling of justice? What are the specific examples? How can they be rectified? The end.Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post. <b><font color = "crimson"> Thomas |
| Music Man 28.09.2007 13:17 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:There is no point to enlisting the "reasons" for a crime, aside from trying to justify it. Unless you are just telling us a story, like we can find on CourtTV or America's Most Wanted. Then okay, I suppose. The only issues are these: Were there any miscarriages of justice? What were they? How can they be addressed? Stay on topic.<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Why is the system unjust? You never go into any of that. You merely point out that there were racial tensions."Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:There were obviously racial tensions. I was only saying, we do not know to what degree there were. Was it just a couple of kids hanging nooses, or was each group constantly and physically threatened by the other? Perhaps it was only argumentative. If the environment calls for random, unjustifiable attacks - then that is a clear "reason" for this crime. If it is relatively peaceful, then this crime is truly unusual.While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write? |
| Music Man 28.09.2007 13:26 |
If you take anything from my posts, take this: The only relevant question to address is this: What were the mishandlings of justice in this case? There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others. Period. In this case, it is whether or not justice was effectively and fairly imparted. Hopefully this helps to set the theme for a relevant conversations. |
| sparrow 21754 28.09.2007 14:41 |
soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell? and did david bowie do the right thing? |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 28.09.2007 14:44 |
^ What she said. |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 14:56 |
font color ThomasQuinn wrote: To summarize: "them blacks crossed white turf and knew what they was gettin' into. Serves 'em right, an' we don't care about injustice, we care only that we's afraid they'll start an uprising". You squire, are defending bigotry. Apartheid. Jim Crow.No, font color Whitey Quinn, you still don't get it do you? That's why I said YOU CAN'T LEARN THIS STUFF IN A CLASSROOM. Ever been to Compton, California? I have. I probably wouldn't walk down the southside at 2 in the morning. Bigotry? No, common sense. Those kids knew exactly what they were doing, knowing full-well that the "southern dummy" is fully alive and well in this part of the country. Am I defending SD? Of course not, but I surely know it exists. Wake up. |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 15:00 |
Sparrow wrote: and did david bowie do the right thing?I am of the belief that, No, Dave didn't do the right thing. Should he have donated that money to the KKK? No, but it would have had the same effect. David should have stayed clear of this whole fiasco, but I'm sure it was wife-driven. Nobody knows who Iman is anymore except trekkies. Now he's taken a side. And, as you can see, he'll get burned for this when all he was trying to do was help. He should have just bought everyone a copy of Young Americans. |
| Ms. Rebel 28.09.2007 15:00 |
Sparrow wrote: soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell? and did david bowie do the right thing?I'm with you on this one xD |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 15:09 |
Sparrow wrote: soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country. 2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!) 3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area. 4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'. 5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over. 6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree. 7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses. 8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head. 9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation. We all know what happens next. |
| LozlanTheMage 28.09.2007 15:41 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: |
| Micrówave 28.09.2007 15:59 |
Well, Lozlan, you make some valid points, but I see holes in mostly everything you said:
LozlanTheMage wrote: Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman.I remember a black man getting beaten by three police officers in New Orleans. Someone even video-taped it. Turns out the cops WERE justified and the man was given more time. Are you SURE this black man from Minnesota was unjustly arrested? Were you there? Do you know the facts of the case? Or are you taking HIS word? The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.without quoting the poverty rate, I would say that in Minnesota, that's about right. Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks)Oh you just did!! Never mind. carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-class Americans as a whole. Classism and racism hand-in-hand, whistling merrily.No sir, the death rate is much higher with crack cocaine than a much higher quality and refined product. The punishment for selling it SHOULD be more severe, and it is. It is a ridiculous extrapolation of a schoolyard brawl, a fact that leads me to strongly suspect that racism is the motivating factor behind the inflated charges.I bet you believe the Michael Vick charges were motivated by race as well, right? Get a grip. This was no schoolyard brawl. Those 6 boys planned to get that kid alone with no chance of escape or help from others. It WAS premeditated. If you are trying to defend the poor black man, how about educating those 6 boys instead? Nope, most have criminal records already. I suppose that was Whitey's fault also. Why did they go to school officials for permission to gather under that tree??? Answer that. Why was permission needed? By those black students? Because THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE INSTIGATING? Why can't the black man admit that? No, let's hide behind the race card. Just like Michael Vick. Go smoke your "dro", Lozlan. It's the black thinking like yours that does nothing to make progress. Blame everyone else. Blame whitey. Keep bringing up the 40 acres and the mule. I have yet to meet a black man who was ACTUALLY a slave at one time in his life. Yet "whitey" has to continue to pay for that. Farrakhan tells you to go out and "take what's ours". Here's a newsflash, Lozlan, if you are black. Slavery has not affected you at all. Quit using it as an excuse. Besides, blacks were the first slave owners. Where's my camel and 40 pieces of gold? |
| sparrow 21754 28.09.2007 16:48 |
Micrówave wrote:i guess im asking, who in the end is the racist ones, or is it even a race issue? is it the whites for prosecuting the blacks for some retaliation, or the fact that the blacks hurt the white kid?Sparrow wrote: soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country. 2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!) 3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area. 4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'. 5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over. 6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree. 7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses. 8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head. 9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation. We all know what happens next. |
| YourValentine 28.09.2007 17:45 |
Micrówave wrote:Between point 7 and 8 of your list other incidents happened according to this website:Sparrow wrote: soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country. 2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!) 3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area. 4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'. 5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over. 6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree. 7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses. 8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head. 9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation. We all know what happens next. link namely: "JACQUIE SOOHEN: A few days after the nooses were hung, the entire black student body staged an impromptu demonstration, crowding underneath the tree during lunch hour. Justin Purvis, the student who first asked to sit underneath the tree, described how the protest came about. JUSTIN PURVIS: It was like, the first beginning, in the courtyard, they said, “Y’all want to go stand under the tree?” We said, “Yeah.” They said, “If you go, I’ll go. If you go, I’ll go.” One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went. JACQUIE SOOHEN: The school responded to the protest by calling police and the district attorney. At an assembly the same day, the District Attorney Reed Walters, accompanied by armed policeman, addressed the students. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers, one of the few black teachers at the school, was there. She recalls the DA's words to the assembled high schoolers. MICHELLE ROGERS: The kids didn't say anything. They were listening. The kids were quiet. And so, District Attorney Reed Walters, you know, proceeded to tell those kids that “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.” And the kids were just -- it was like in awe that the district -- you know, Reed Walters would tell these kids that. He held a pen in his hand and told those kids that, “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.” JACQUIE SOOHEN: A series of incidents followed throughout the fall. In October, a black student was beaten for entering a private all-white party. Later that month, a white student pulled a gun on a group of black students at a gas station, claiming self-defense. The black students wrestled the gun away and reported the incident to police. They were charged with assault and robbery of the gun. No charges were ever filed against the white students in either incident. Then, in late November, someone tried to burn down the high school, creating even more tension." If all this is true the school has failed to address the problem properly. If all this is true, there is a racial issue. And - no matter if it's a racial issue or not - the charges against the underaged offenders just do not match the crime. |
| YourValentine 28.09.2007 17:45 |
|
| Erin 28.09.2007 18:05 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Isn't anyone else sick how the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and all the black leaders have turned African American leadership after Martin Luther King Jr. into a fuckin' joke? First it was O.J, then Michael Vick, and now Jena 6. Let me tell you something, if MLK was still alive today by no means he would defend a criminal. All he would ask for is for a fair trial. It doesn't matter for what reasons those 6 kids were provoked. It doesn't matter if this kid that was nearly beaten up to death was a white supremacist. What matters is that those 6 kids took justice in their own hands when they should have reported the incident with the nooses to higher authorities. Let's not forget that the white kids are also guilty of a lesser crime, but a crime nonetheless.Totally agree. |
| Music Man 28.09.2007 20:23 |
LozlanTheMage wrote:Racism itself is indeed harmless. In fact, every person should have the right to judge any other person in any way they see fit. It is only when they act upon it, and when these actions infringe upon the rights of others, that it should be addressed. In fact, to try to control the way people think is, in itself, a gross injustice and an infringement upon our very basic rights. Also, to try to arbitrarily control how people act is also an infringement upon basic rights. The standard for controlling another's actions or thoughts is "if they infringe upon the rights of others." Thought has never infringed the rights of anyone - only actions. As a Libertarian, I feel it is my duty to argue that as long as that person keeps to himself as he drinks his lemonade, he may think about anything he damn well pleases without being oppressed by the government.<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others.Sir, do you understand the base concept of racism? It is not harmless, because it is a prejudice deeply held by many people who wield power (be it political or physical) over those they loathe. What you seem to be arguing is that as long as someone is quietly, privately racist, and does nothing but sit on their porch drinking lemonade whilst thinking about lynching someone, then it's just dandy. LozlanTheMage wrote: However, that's not entirely the point of demonizing an entire segment of the human race. People have this crazy little tendency to act on their deeply held beliefs. This action can adopt many subtle guises, and is not always readily discernible, namely because mindsets shape political and social landscapes. Therefore, claiming that racism is only an active social disease when it 'infringes upon the rights of others' is like saying murder is only murder when it's murder. Racism is an active and virulent social force, constantly shaping public policy and opinion.When people act on their beliefs, only when they act upon these beliefs, and only if these actions infringe upon the rights of others - only then should they be restricted or punished. Racism isn't inherently acted upon to the detriment of the rights of others, contrarily to what you believe. LozlanTheMage wrote: Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman. The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.That data is more or less useless, aside from being an "interesting fact." There is no causation in it. It could just as easily be that black people are 25 times as likely to commit a crime, which could be due to social pressures, poverty, or any number of things. Numbers don't lie, but people's interpretations of numbers do all the time. Of course, it could be just as possible that it is due to racism in the system. However, to extrapolate that from those numbers is logically unsound. LozlanTheMage wrote: |
| deleted user 29.09.2007 00:08 |
Just so everyone knows, not all Louisiana people are racist. *long sigh* This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss. |
| Raf 29.09.2007 07:28 |
Micrówave wrote:I think the black students were right about asking permission to go there. If the USA are a democratic country, they should be allowed to be there.Sparrow wrote: soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country. 2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!) 3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area. 4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'. 5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over. 6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree. 7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses. 8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head. 9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation. We all know what happens next. The white students were wrong for hanging the nooses. The black people should've reported them. But the black students didn't report them, they just hit the crap out of a guy. 6 against 1. They lost all the right they had to complain about the incident. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 29.09.2007 08:42 |
<font color=chartreuse>Thirtynine? wrote: Just so everyone knows, not all Louisiana people are racist. *long sigh* This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss.The world doesn't want to know this. If you're not racist, there's no conflict, nothing to talk or fight about. Sad, but true. |
| Donna13 29.09.2007 10:25 |
"Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons." I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases? And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act. There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right. And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence. If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself? Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 29.09.2007 10:41 |
Donna13 wrote: And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence. If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?Donna, I agree with everything you said in your post. Everything. To your battered wife comment, though, I have to say not long ago the issue WOULD have been about what she did or said to provoke him. It took a lot of publicity of brutal beatings before society saw a husband's "rights" over his wife in a different light. In today's climate of political correctness, we're expected to show outrage at the whites for hanging the nooses but understanding of the blacks who responded out of 'defense'. It's going to take some brave and ballsy soul to come out and say publicly what you said here - while hanging nooses is disgusting and should be addressed somehow, the main issue here is not racism, it's violence. |
| Donna13 29.09.2007 11:21 |
Thanks, Magical. Gosh, it is pretty rare for anyone here to agree with me completely, so I appreciate it! |
| Sergei. 29.09.2007 11:25 |
D: *Throws away Labyrinth and all my Bowie albums* No, I'm kidding. But I think it's bullshit to say that the incident was merely a "schoolyard fight". A schoolyard fight consists of one kid against another, not six kids against one. There's really no excuse for such savage behaviour, regardless of what someone else said or did to start the problem. I'm not defending the kids who hung the nooses, that was fucking stupid too, but there comes a time when you really just need to ignore the person/thing that's offending you and let *you* be the smart one. If those "Jena 6" kids or whatever had just said "You know what? Fuck them." and went on with their lives instead of deciding to take matters into their own hands by beating the shit out of one of the boys, none of this would've happened. :/ I love how the dumb fucks like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have to get involved, too... those guys make me so fucking mad, showing up at every goddamn rally or protest around something that might have been caused by racism and talking about how the black man is oppressed and they must eliminate the white man, etc. etc. What the hell?! Eh. |
| Music Man 29.09.2007 14:12 |
Donna13 wrote: "Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons." I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases? And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act. There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right. And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence. If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself? Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so. However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization. |
| Donna13 29.09.2007 19:03 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:No, you are right, Music Man. I know what you are saying. I guess what I was trying to say (and didn't say it at all) is that discussion of the tennis shoes as being lethal or not lethal is just a diversion from what matters, which is the force behind the kick.Donna13 wrote: "Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons." I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases? And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act. There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right. And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence. If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself? Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so. However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization. |