Jump to content

The Jena Six


burdizzos

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

You don't know that. Your pre-determined bias is showing.

 

 

Very true, that's the kind of comment that makes threads like this go down hill in a hurry.

 

Despite that, the kid who took the gun never called the police, or at least there is no record of it. That is mentioned in this article which is provided as one of the citations from the wikipedia writeup.

 

That's part of the reason why I didn't cite the Jenasix site as the reference for the historical data. They provide no citations and the bias is even more clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

 

Very true, that's the kind of comment that makes threads like this go down hill in a hurry.


Despite that, the kid who took the gun never called the police, or at least there is no record of it. That is mentioned in
this article
which is provided as one of the citations from the wikipedia writeup.


That's part of the reason why I didn't cite the Jenasix site as the reference for the historical data. They provide no citations and the bias is even more clear.

Yes. There is no record of it. Perhaps the police department conveniently lost all that info. It is very doubtful, but has been known to happen. As far as this case goes, here's why I don't care for "hate crimes" being called that. This comes from the article you just pointed toward.

 

"He pointed out that the only issue that has arisen out of the recent events in Jena that carries federal ramifications is the noose incident. Everything else, Washington said, is a state crime, if anything, and should be handled by state authorities."

 

How is it the noose incident potentially a hate crime, but six kids beating the crap out of a white kid is not a hate crime even though their reasons for doing so appear to me to be racial as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I say this and yes, it might incite but that's not my intent. But, how many times do we see this kind of situation where blacks have an extreme aversion to the police. Do you deny this?

In some instances they are justified. That said, I still find this difficult to believe.

Please, read my original post on this thread. I said there is plenty of blame to go around.

Maybe the rioting should begin and we wait 'til the dust settles? Seems to me that's where this is heading. Rest assured Jessie and Al will get all the national press on this story thereby making the white community look like the complicit ones and the black community were just the innocent bystanders.

I don't get a single hint that there is anyone in this community, on either side, who is willing to stop this. Am I wrong?

Since Al and Jessie are there what is the white community to do? Who speaks for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


How is it the noose incident potentially a hate crime, but six kids beating the crap out of a white kid is not a hate crime even though their reasons for doing so appear to me to be racial as well?

 

 

Wait, isn't this (the noose) an expression of free speech???

 

Oh, I forgot about that pesky double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I, too, have a hard time with the Hate Crime business, but I can understand the reasoning behind federal hate crime laws. It's a tough spot.

 

Is it the job of the federal gov't to protect the rights of US citizens such that the federal gov't has the authority to step in when a local gov't isn't acting in good faith on behalf of The Constitution?

 

The real problem is establishing that which defines a Hate Crime. Since that is impossible to pin down, it is bound to be perpetually redefined with an associated increase in power for every revision.

 

That's why I think this is a matter that should be left to the the people and to the courts.

 

Racial harmony cannot be legislated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I don't get a single hint that there is anyone in this community, on either side, who is willing to stop this. Am I wrong?

My guess is that there are plenty of decent whites and blacks in that community who are either simply outnumbered or outgunned. If you simply wanted to get out of the situation and take your kids with you, how are you going to sell your house in that town right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's why I think this is a matter that should be left to the the people and to the courts.


Racial harmony cannot be legislated.

I agree, it cannot be legislated. The courts aren't perfect and many times not competant. It may take federal intervention.

 

However, putting up the noose, isn't that freedom of speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My guess is that there are plenty of decent whites and blacks in that community who are either simply outnumbered or outgunned. If you simply wanted to get out of the situation and take your kids with you, how are you going to sell your house in that town right now?

 

 

An all too common problem, isn't it?

 

So then, with that said, just who is protecting the citizens? I'm just asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree, it cannot be legislated. The courts aren't perfect and many times not competant. It may take federal intervention.


However, putting up the noose, isn't that freedom of speech?

 

 

Hanging a noose is a form of free speech. However, incendiary actions like that are not tolerated on school grounds. While it should not warrant jail time, it is most certainly grounds for expulsion. This is ultimately left up to the school board to decide. Again, the locals dropped the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Speaking of hate crimes, there was an incident here, just outside of Toronto, about a week or two ago. An old Jewish couple own a house and they had been sub-letting it to a white guy for the last decade, but for the past year he stopped paying his rent, so they finally made the moves to evict him. When they showed up at the house to change the locks after getting the eviction order, they found the house utterly destroyed - he ripped up the walls and ceilings, {censored} all over the carpet and ground it in, really did a number on the place. But he did one thing that was exceptional: He spray-painted all over the walls such lovely sentiments as "{censored} all Jews", "Kill the Kykes", and swasticas, etc. The owners, holocaust survivors who have been living in Canada since their release from the Concentration Camps, were obviously distressed at this, but the cops wouldn't charge the guy with a hate crime saying that there was a key-factor missing: There had been no physical violence against them.

I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Was it a hate crime? I certainly see it that way, but I'm Jewish and therefore probably biased. However, I believe that if he had written the same stuff about Chinese or Black people using the appropriate derogatory statements that I still think it would be a hate crime, but maybe that's just me. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Hanging a noose is a form of free speech. However, incendiary actions like that are not tolerated on school grounds. While it should not warrant jail time, it is most certainly grounds for expulsion. This is ultimately left up to the school board to decide. Again, the locals dropped the ball.

 

 

So, stomping U.S. flags is OK and not incendiary but the noose is? Again, I see a double standard here.

 

Bono, if this were the U.S. and if the landlords were black or gay and he wrote black or gay slurs on the walls that guys ass would be in the slammer and they would throw away the key. Never mind his crime, That's just reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

*snip*

 

 

Does it matter if there was any real racism involved? What if the guy doesn't really give a crap about jews or have any real racist opinions, he was just trying to think of the most hurtful possibly thing he could do to them?

 

If that was the case I'd say it wasn't truly racially motivated at all. Get's kind of murky....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Speaking of hate crimes, there was an incident here, just outside of Toronto, about a week or two ago. An old Jewish couple own a house and they had been sub-letting it to a white guy for the last decade, but for the past year he stopped paying his rent, so they finally made the moves to evict him. When they showed up at the house to change the locks after getting the eviction order, they found the house utterly destroyed - he ripped up the walls and ceilings, {censored} all over the carpet and ground it in, really did a number on the place. But he did one thing that was exceptional: He spray-painted all over the walls such lovely sentiments as "{censored} all Jews", "Kill the Kykes", and swasticas, etc. The owners, holocaust survivors who have been living in Canada since their release from the Concentration Camps, were obviously distressed at this, but the cops wouldn't charge the guy with a hate crime saying that there was a key-factor missing: There had been no physical violence against them.


I'm curious as to what you guys think about this. Was it a hate crime? I certainly see it that way, but I'm Jewish and therefore probably biased. However, I believe that if he had written the same stuff about Chinese or Black people using the appropriate derogatory statements that I still think it would be a hate crime, but maybe that's just me. What do you guys think?

 

 

Philosophically, I do not think that it is a crime to hurt someone's feelings, nor should it be. Freedom of speech is dependent on protecting all speech. Once the gov't is granted the right to censor any speech, no matter how ugly, the door is opened for the gov't to dictate what can be said.

 

In the case you mentioned, the only crime is destruction of property. The couple has the ability to file civil suit against the man and pictures of the Anti-Semitic graffiti would definitely sway a jury toward a greater award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

So, stomping U.S. flags is OK and not incendiary but the noose is? Again, I see a double standard here.


Bono, if this were the U.S. and if the landlords were black or gay and he wrote black or gay slurs on the walls that guys ass would be in the slammer and they would throw away the key. Never mind his crime, That's just reality.

 

 

Stomping an American flag is a form of protest against the gov't. Hanging a noose at the scene of a racially charged incident is a threat.

 

There's a huge difference.

 

 

 

Do you have precedent for your "reality"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, stomping U.S. flags is OK and not incendiary but the noose is? Again, I see a double standard here.


Bono, if this were the U.S. and if the landlords were black or gay and he wrote black or gay slurs on the walls that guys ass would be in the slammer and they would throw away the key. Never mind his crime, That's just reality.

 

 

Hanging a noose over the spot where somebody's been sitting could be seen as a death threat, which goes beyond free speech IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Philosophically, I do not think that it is a crime to hurt someone's feelings, nor should it be. Freedom of speech is dependent on protecting all speech. Once the gov't is granted the right to censor any speech, no matter how ugly, the door is opened for the gov't to dictate what can be said.


In the case you mentioned, the only crime is destruction of property. The couple has the ability to file civil suit against the man and pictures of the Anti-Semitic graffiti would definitely sway a jury toward a greater award.

 

 

I think you're both probably right and I'm just being over-emotional about this because of my racial bias. He just wanted to hurt them, but if they'd been regular white people he still would have done the same thing, only without the swastikas. Maybe he would have used upside-down crosses or something instead. It still bothers me that he lashed out that way, but maybe you're right and the hate wasn't motivated by race, but rather because he was pissed about getting kicked out of his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Philosophically, I do not think that it is a crime to hurt someone's feelings, nor should it be. Freedom of speech is dependent on protecting all speech. Once the gov't is granted the right to censor any speech, no matter how ugly, the door is opened for the gov't to dictate what can be said.


In the case you mentioned, the only crime is destruction of property. The couple has the ability to file civil suit against the man and pictures of the Anti-Semitic graffiti would definitely sway a jury toward a greater award.

 

 

But, isn't this a hate crime under the statute? I was under the impression that it is because the writings are racial slurs. If it isn't, then why would the noose be considered a hate crime? The noose is a prop.

 

One is words but the other is a prop, albeit an incidious prop. I don't see the difference.

 

And how about that bank robber who calls a bank patron a nigger before shooting them but he also shoots a white? Hate crimes?

 

If not, then what is a hate crime exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But, isn't this a hate crime under the statute? I was under the impression that it is because the writings are racial slurs. If it isn't, then why would the noose be considered a hate crime? The noose is a prop.


One is words but the other is a prop, albeit an incidious prop. I don't see the difference.


And how about that bank robber who calls a bank patron a nigger before shooting them but he also shoots a white? Hate crimes?


If not, then what is a hate crime exactly?

 

 

I have no idea. Remember, I don't support Hate Crime Laws. I think it's a bad idea.

 

The nooses were hung by students on school grounds. That is a matter for the school board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


Do you think the school board handled this appropriately?

 

 

No, I do not. I think the students should have been expelled, per the principle's recommendation. The fact that the Superintendent said, "Adolescents play pranks. I don't think it was a threat against anybody." Tells me that those clowns were turning a blind eye to what was really happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Let me start off by saying, "ALL" High School kids have their own groups and areas of...yes, the school grounds where they (the groups) assemble to be with their peers; be it: Jocks, Nerds, Chessclub, Cheerleaders, Band, Hispanic, Asians, White, Black or Future Farmers of America. Now we all know what kind of {censored}storm you start when you invade their space, some will move farther away and some will run the invader off...common school/playground ethics. So these whites had this tree picked out that by all accounts is where white students sat for lunch daily, whether they were some form of secondary group, like say Math Club, Lacrosse, or even FFA; who knows? maybe they were just white kids strictly and that was their hangout. Now these Black kids went and got some form of permission from the Principal to sit under this tree, hench the Nooses the next day or when.
So these Black students with forethought knew exactly what they were about to start, as exampled by their asking for permission. So who started this whole mess? Before you answer......everyone has bitten off far more than they ever dreamt. It amounted to and still does, as an exercise in futility for no good reason except to spread hate...started by who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...