‘Jena 6’ protesters descend on Louisiana town

Page 5 of Originally Posted by spe690 I wouldn't be so quick to judge here. I am from the south, and I am caucasian, and I have faced racism from African-America... 69 comments | 2132 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #61

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    Quote Originally Posted by HHSDad View Post
    Who was beat half to death? The kid in question went to the local football game the same day of the "beating".
    Went to a football game on a Monday in December? Find it hard to believe. Again, taking out all the false information from both sides, I don't see how this is true.

    As far as how badly he was beaten, I am sure you could be "lifeless" and unconscious, be released from the hospital after being there for three hours, and go out and do normal things. Not an MD but I see where it's possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by HHSDad View Post
    I heard football game on the radio.
    As stated, there is a lot of false information out there.
    Advertisement

  2. #62

    Join Date
    May 07
    Location
    Mystic Knights of the Sea Lodge Hall
    Posts
    548

    Quote Originally Posted by letabrotherspeak View Post
    Yes, but their are limits to each of the above.
    Sir Oliver Wedall Holmes said it best. "The right to swing one's fist, ends at the tip of the other man's nose."
    One's rights in/on school grounds is further limited.
    One has to look at the society of Jena...the culture of Jena, which most of us have no frame of reference to regarding the divide in that community. The hanging of the noose is a blatant symbol of "lynching"...it is inflammatory and intimidating.
    The perpatrators of the symbolic event should have been punished much more severely.
    In sertain societies a student could wear a shirt with the Confederate Stars and Bars, and get away with it, however a symbol such as the "noose" in Jena takes on a whole new spectrum.
    As for the beating...attempted murder with a "tennis shoe"? Yet in two seperate incidents, one of the Jena 6 (Robert Bailey) was beaten by more than one individual with beer bottles and the kid that threw the first punch was charged with simple battery and probation. The next day, Bailey ran into another white kid who was at the party, and the guy pulled a firearm on Bailey, and Bailey was able to take the gun away from him after they tangled. Bailey was charged with theft of a firearm.
    The following Monday, Justin Barker, who was friends with the kids who hung the noose, taunted Bailey at lunch, then was hit from behind and then kicked by six students unconscious (there are witnesses who dispute the beating).
    That qualifies as second-degree attempted murder?
    Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s quote is well known. However, the hanging of the nooses did not interfere with anyone's nose. Liberals are quick to insist that we must have freedom of speech and expression and that it cannot be censored. Attacks, particularly by entertainers, of chroistians and Judeo-Christian beliefs runs rampant. We who are deeply offended are reminded of the First Amendment porotections for those who make the statements and/or expressions. Why is this any different? Why should it be treated any differently?

    The old bromide is that, even when we are disgusted by the words/expressions, we must defend the right of the individual to express it. Would this not apply uniformly? Or, on the other hand, do we support the First amendment only when it is our own preferred speech/expression that is the subject of scrutiny?

    I don't approve of what was done. However, I am more bothered by the way individuals pick and choose just when the First Amendment should apply. Either it should apply consistantly or not at all.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 02
    Posts
    32,704

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish Stevens View Post
    If I need to explain that to you, you are past the point of reason. The application should be obvious to anyone familiar with the US Constitution and the facts of this matter. Of course, my post does not rely upon the dual evils of emotion and political correctness.
    I'm disappointed. I gave you a chance to explain a cliche statement that is thrown out many times without thinking. I was hoping this wasn't the case and that you could expound on your cliche.

    You're smart enough to know the "freedom of speech" is not a defense for everything. Do students have freedom of speech in schools? Do employees have freedom of speech in the workplace? Can I yell "I hate gays!!" in my office without fear of losing my job? Uh, no.

    I think you are the one whose emotions have gotten in the way of intelligent debate. Your past posts have proven that you're too intelligent to fall into this trap.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    May 07
    Location
    Mystic Knights of the Sea Lodge Hall
    Posts
    548

    Ah, you miss the whole point. I am not defendidng the boys for hanging the nooses.
    The school has every right to discipline them since it was done on school property and As I recall, the school did punish them. It was a school infraction and not a crime. It can be argued that the school should have punished them more severely but that is another issue.

    Obviously, when you enter a situation- job, school, etc.- you must adher to the reasonable rules of that situation. Punching a fellow worker in the nose is a crime. Defaming a fellow employee is a crime. However, hanging a noose on a tree or in your office is not a crime. Of course, it may cost you a suspension or you may lose your job. That is fine because some level of decorum is needed in those situations. However, it should not be a crime. Either we have this liberal interpretation of the First Amendment or we don't. It shouldn't work for one group but not for another. Unfortunately, in this climate of political correctness and selective censorship, t6he First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights are not equally applied. that, my learned friend, is the problem that I see.




    My main problem is with the concept of "hate crimes". I find such a classification ridiculous. It is merely social engineering at the expense of the rule of law and the US Constitution.

    What the white boys did cannot be justified. However, it is not a crime. the color of the skin involved should be of no materiality.

    However, I do find it interesting that you find my argument "emotional". It is anything but emotional. It is, however, not politically correct. But, then, truth is rarely politically correct.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jun 02
    Posts
    32,704

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish Stevens View Post
    Ah, you miss the whole point. I am not defendidng the boys for hanging the nooses.
    The school has every right to discipline them since it was done on school property and As I recall, the school did punish them. It was a school infraction and not a crime. It can be argued that the school should have punished them more severely but that is another issue.

    Obviously, when you enter a situation- job, school, etc.- you must adher to the reasonable rules of that situation. Punching a fellow worker in the nose is a crime. Defaming a fellow employee is a crime. However, hanging a noose on a tree or in your office is not a crime. Of course, it may cost you a suspension or you may lose your job. That is fine because some level of decorum is needed in those situations. However, it should not be a crime. Either we have this liberal interpretation of the First Amendment or we don't. It shouldn't work for one group but not for another. Unfortunately, in this climate of political correctness and selective censorship, t6he First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights are not equally applied. that, my learned friend, is the problem that I see.




    My main problem is with the concept of "hate crimes". I find such a classification ridiculous. It is merely social engineering at the expense of the rule of law and the US Constitution.

    What the white boys did cannot be justified. However, it is not a crime. the color of the skin involved should be of no materiality.

    However, I do find it interesting that you find my argument "emotional". It is anything but emotional. It is, however, not politically correct. But, then, truth is rarely politically correct.

    That's what I was looking for. I did take it as emotional since you have an obvious problem with hate crimes and political correctness.

    Regardless of your position on the validity of the hate crime laws, they are in place and , if so, could apply here. I'd also say that your assertion that "free speech" does not apply to both sides is a generalization that has obvious exceptions. The "right" railed against those who said "freedom of speech" should apply in the "Bong for Jesus" case and ultimately won out.

    While on the subject of "hate crimes," what should happen to someone/some group that puts a burning cross on the lawn of a black family?

  6. #66
    Long Time Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Posts
    2,026

    I believe what he is trying to say is there are two different infraction here in the story. I'll ask his question? What crime has been commited if you burn a cross on someones lawn? What crime is commented if someone burns an American Flag on yours? Or and object of oppression or distraction? The burning of the christian manger sceen? I don't know? Tresspassing? Unlawfull burning? The crime that has been committed in the "Jena 6" is the beating of one student by 6 others. Just because I don't agree with what punishment that was handed out about a something doesn't give me or anyone else the right to beat someone. That would be taking the law into your on hands!

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jun 02
    Posts
    32,704

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Time Warrior View Post
    I believe what he is trying to say is there are two different infraction here in the story. I'll ask his question? What crime has been commited if you burn a cross on someones lawn? What crime is commented if someone burns an American Flag on yours? Or and object of oppression or distraction? The burning of the christian manger sceen? I don't know? Tresspassing? Unlawfull burning? The crime that has been committed in the "Jena 6" is the beating of one student by 6 others. Just because I don't agree with what punishment that was handed out about a something doesn't give me or anyone else the right to beat someone.
    I don't think anyone with any rational thought thinks the 6 should be exonerated for their roles. The issue seems to be an issue of equity. If I recall, there was a case of whites on a black kid and they were charged with a misdemeanor.

    So, to your questions and to my question.

    I have no idea what the actual charge would be for a burning cross. I'm not familiar with the criminal code. However, the question was asked in response the issue of "hate crime" laws. Isn't this exactly the type of case that hate laws were created? Can someone be convicted for intimidation?

  8. #68
    Long Time Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Posts
    2,026

    Quote Originally Posted by cshs81 View Post
    I don't think anyone with any rational thought thinks the 6 should be exonerated for their roles. The issue seems to be an issue of equity. If I recall, there was a case of whites on a black kid and they were charged with a misdemeanor.

    So, to your questions and to my question.

    I have no idea what the actual charge would be for a burning cross. I'm not familiar with the criminal code. However, the question was asked in response the issue of "hate crime" laws. Isn't this exactly the type of case that hate laws were created? Can someone be convicted for intimidation?

    All very good questions. I agree with you. I wish that all this mess hadn't started for the people in that community. It's going to get worse IMO with all the civil rights bunch coming into town. Equality is what everyone is looking for but hanging a rope in a tree isn't the same as beating someone. Just not the same. If the court systems haven't been treating people fair then someone should have called the Attorney Generals office and reported it.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    May 07
    Location
    Mystic Knights of the Sea Lodge Hall
    Posts
    548

    Let me try one more time because the principle is, I believe, basic and important. I oppose the concept of "hate crimes" because I believe that they cannot be justified as being constitutional.

    Why should the beating of a member of what is seen as a minority be seen as a more serious crime than the beating of one of what is seen as not a member of a minority? Is one head more "valuable" than is another? I don't think such a conclusion is constitutional. As one of several sources for my conclusion, I will cite the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The concept of "hate crimes" is nothing more than more social engineering and manipulation.

    I would be the first to state that, not too many years ago, the beating of certain individuals (blacks, homosexuals, Irish immigrants, etc.) were treated less seriously than were the beatings of a good, old WASP. That was wrong. However, to reverse the process is equally as wrong.

    As for the burning of the cross, I would assume that the perpetrators could be charged with trespass, destruction of property, possibly an endangerment charge (maybe even attempted murder if we want to get a little melodramatic) of some sort, and a few other such crimes. However, to magnify the situation by giving it a special classification such as "hate crime" is still, in my opinion, unconstitutional. I would not expect the courts to necessarily agree with me but I would submit that their perception is based much more on political pressures and "the times" than it would be based on a reasonable reading and interpretation of the US Constitution.

    I apologize for the poor typing in my previous post. I didn't proof it since I was late for an appointment.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 03
    Location
    Palm Desert, CA
    Posts
    23,817

    Discussion of criminal behavior by juveniles (anyone under 18) is never permitted anywhere on BGP.

Top