Jena 6

[KEmperor]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

Have to agree here.

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't make racially insensitive remarks period, let alone in a school with many black students.  The racist deserved what he got.

It doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. The victim being a racist jackass doesn't change that. If we go about letting people off scott free for breaking the law just because the victim "deserved it" then we cease to have proper law and order. If you wish to live in a society where people get off for breaking the law simply because the mob feels that the victim was a jerk then you've got a serious problem and you're little better than a KKK member who thinks that a lynch mob should get off because "the n deserved it". Personally, I prefer to live in a society where violence is only justified by self-defense.

[Friz]

I wouldn't make racially insensitive remarks period, let alone in a school with many black students.  The racist deserved what he got.

It doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. The victim being a racist jackass doesn't change that. If we go about letting people off scott free for breaking the law just because the victim "deserved it" then we cease to have proper law and order. If you wish to live in a society where people get off for breaking the law simply because the mob feels that the victim was a jerk then you've got a serious problem and you're little better than a KKK member who thinks that a lynch mob should get off because "the n deserved it". Personally, I prefer to live in a society where violence is only justified by self-defense.

The racist lauded death threats (the nooses).  I'm glad you want to live in a society where a little violence amongst minors (no weapons used at all) constitutes a full-scale criminal trial.  The fact that the parish Jena is 80% pro-Bush explains the injustices going on there.

Saying the racist deserved what he got because he held racist attitudes that aren't acceptable in modern society is completely different than saying that n----r deserved it because he's black (BTW, show some f--king tact by self-censoring a racial slur, will you?).

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't make racially insensitive remarks period, let alone in a school with many black students.  The racist deserved what he got.

It doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. The victim being a racist jackass doesn't change that. If we go about letting people off scott free for breaking the law just because the victim "deserved it" then we cease to have proper law and order. If you wish to live in a society where people get off for breaking the law simply because the mob feels that the victim was a jerk then you've got a serious problem and you're little better than a KKK member who thinks that a lynch mob should get off because "the n deserved it". Personally, I prefer to live in a society where violence is only justified by self-defense.

The racist lauded death threats (the nooses).  I'm glad you want to live in a society where a little violence amongst minors (no weapons used at all) constitutes a full-scale criminal trial.

Strawman - I've already said the charges against them were overblown. However their conduct goes beyond a mere schoolyard fight, and it should be handled accordingly. This was an attack by a group of people against one person, and the attack continued even after the victim could not fight back. Further, these aren't little children we're talking about here, it's teenagers who should damn well know better.

As far as the nooses, I do agree that those responsible for those deserved a harsher punishment from the law and I never said otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a big difference between saying he deserved it and saying the perpetrator should get off for breaking the law because the victim deserved it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel that they should receive a lesser punishment than they would get if the victim wasn't a racist. If the roles were reversed and six white kids beat up a black kid and kicked him in the head multiple times while unconcious you would be screaming bloody murder. Regardless of the fact that the victim was a racist jackass a physical attack against him was entirely unwarranted, and we as a society should not condone such violence. Last time I checked we lived in a country where we have the right to free thought, which means we have to take the good with the bad, and when someone is physically attacked just because they hold views that are unpopular or immoral then the attackers should be held responsible to the same degree as anyone else who commits a similar crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't public television chief, I don't have to censor anything. Censorship doesn't change the meaning of the word, does it? No? So I don't see much point in it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The racist lauded death threats (the nooses).  I'm glad you want to live in a society where a little violence amongst minors (no weapons used at all) constitutes a full-scale criminal trial.  The fact that the parish Jena is 80% pro-Bush explains the injustices going on there.

For more fun, check out how it voted in the 2003 Governor's race. Gee, I wonder why?

[Friz]

I wouldn't make racially insensitive remarks period, let alone in a school with many black students.  The racist deserved what he got.

It doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. The victim being a racist jackass doesn't change that. If we go about letting people off scott free for breaking the law just because the victim "deserved it" then we cease to have proper law and order. If you wish to live in a society where people get off for breaking the law simply because the mob feels that the victim was a jerk then you've got a serious problem and you're little better than a KKK member who thinks that a lynch mob should get off because "the n deserved it". Personally, I prefer to live in a society where violence is only justified by self-defense.

The racist lauded death threats (the nooses).  I'm glad you want to live in a society where a little violence amongst minors (no weapons used at all) constitutes a full-scale criminal trial.

Strawman - I've already said the charges against them were overblown. However their conduct goes beyond a mere schoolyard fight, and it should be handled accordingly. This was an attack by a group of people against one person, and the attack continued even after the victim could not fight back. Further, these aren't little children we're talking about here, it's teenagers who should damn well know better.

As far as the nooses, I do agree that those responsible for those deserved a harsher punishment from the law and I never said otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a big difference between saying he deserved it and saying the perpetrator should get off for breaking the law because the victim deserved it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel that they should receive a lesser punishment than they would get if the victim wasn't a racist. If the roles were reversed and six white kids beat up a black kid and kicked him in the head multiple times while unconcious you would be screaming bloody murder. Regardless of the fact that the victim was a racist jackass a physical attack against him was entirely unwarranted, and we as a society should not condone such violence. Last time I checked we lived in a country where we have the right to free thought, which means we have to take the good with the bad, and when someone is physically attacked just because they hold views that are unpopular or immoral then the attackers should be held responsible to the same degree as anyone else who commits a similar crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't public television chief, I don't have to censor anything. Censorship doesn't change the meaning of the word, does it? No? So I don't see much point in it.

Your defense of racism as free speech is insensitive and moronic at best.  Seeing as you have a Georgia avatar, it's unsurprising (but still disheartening) you feel this way.

[John Dibble]

Your defense of racism as free speech is insensitive and moronic at best.  Seeing as you have a Georgia avatar, it's unsurprising (but still disheartening) you feel this way.

So then do you want to make racism a crime then? Do you wish to start policing people's thoughts? I think racism is deplorable, but I'm not about to legislate how people should think. My concern is that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or ideology - what's wrong with that?

By the way, you seem to have a terrible anti-south bias. I doubt you've ever lived here, yet you act like you know everything. I'm not saying we're without our problems, but your own prejudice is quite clear.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

Have to agree here.

They were charged w/ aggravated 2nd degree battery, which requires a weapon - no weapon was involved.

[Friz]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

Have to agree here.

They were charged w/ aggravated 2nd degree battery, which requires a weapon - no weapon was involved.

Wow, Inks is being tolerant.  What caused the change of heart?

[John Dibble]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

Have to agree here.

They were charged w/ aggravated 2nd degree battery, which requires a weapon - no weapon was involved.

Wow, Inks is being tolerant.  What caused the change of heart?

Did it occur to you that perhaps Inks actually believes the law should be followed?

[Friz]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

Have to agree here.

They were charged w/ aggravated 2nd degree battery, which requires a weapon - no weapon was involved.

Wow, Inks is being tolerant.  What caused the change of heart?

Did it occur to you that perhaps Inks actually believes the law should be followed?

The point you're avoiding whether I think the racist deserved what he got or not is that the charges were overblown and unjust (as Inks has stated).

Why do you want a society where corrupt justice systems exist?

[Friz]

Your defense of racism as free speech is insensitive and moronic at best.  Seeing as you have a Georgia avatar, it's unsurprising (but still disheartening) you feel this way.

So then do you want to make racism a crime then? Do you wish to start policing people's thoughts? I think racism is deplorable, but I'm not about to legislate how people should think. My concern is that the law applies equally to everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or ideology - what's wrong with that?

By the way, you seem to have a terrible anti-south bias. I doubt you've ever lived here, yet you act like you know everything. I'm not saying we're without our problems, but your own prejudice is quite clear.

The south is still horribly racist.  I'm prejudiced against racism.  Sorry if that's wrong.

[John Dibble]

Why do you want a society where corrupt justice systems exist?

Strawman again - I've said multiple times that the charges were overblown and I've also said that those responsible for the nooses should have received a greater punishment. (not sure if they were really intended as death threats, but it was clearly intimidation and should be treated seriously) The point you seem to be ignoring is that I want a justice system that treats people equally regardless of race, sex, religion, belief, etc. Does that sound like a corrupt system to you?

My problem with your statements in this thread is that from my perspective you are acting like the attack was ok because the victim held beliefs you don't like, not that you think the charges are overblown. On that latter point I've agreed with you multiple times but you've clearly ignored that and have asserted I hold beliefs that I don't at least twice now.

[John Dibble]

The south is still horribly racist.  I'm prejudiced against racism.  Sorry if that's wrong.

In some areas it is indeed still racist, but you act as if the whole of the south is that way and that's a terrible misconception. I've lived here in Georgia my entire life and I've seen whites and blacks getting along ammicably more often than not.

[Friz]

The south is still horribly racist.  I'm prejudiced against racism.  Sorry if that's wrong.

In some areas it is indeed still racist, but you act as if the whole of the south is that way and that's a terrible misconception. I've lived here in Georgia my entire life and I've seen whites and blacks getting along ammicably more often than not.

That's great to hear.

[opebo]

Louisiana=garbage pile.

Pretty much. The whites and the blacks down there live like cavemen.

Let us not forget that this is the fault of neither group of poors, black or white - is is caused by their owners, who mostly do not even live in the state. 

But the double standard is not correctly resolved by letting the black kids off the hook too.

Self-defense.  The racist scumbags hung nooses from a tree.  They can't expect that to be considered "saying something racially insensitive."

It is accurate that they were subject to a death threat given the extensive and quite recent history of lynching in the South, and the obvious continuing extreme bias of the 'legal' system there.

[ragnar]

Did you read the article?  Most of it was not mentioned on CBS tonight (such as the racist remarks that caused the beating or that he went to a social function that night).  The problem at hand is the double standard in the justice system.

Contrary to what you clearly believe, saying something racially insensitive is not justification for aggravated assault.

There's also the part where Bailey got beaten by white people, to whom nothing was done, and when he was threatened by a white guy and took the gun away in self-defense, resulting in him being charged with theft of a firearm while the white guy, obviously intending to threaten him with the gun, had, again, nothing done to him.  Both whites and blacks did equally bad things here, but the black people get criminal charges while nobody seems to care about the white people.

If the events described in this article are fully accurate, I don't think it can really be argued that there isn't some sort of double-standard going on.

Lets see he (Bailey) got beaten up because he came uninvited to a party, where he tried to forced himself in (and was beaten up by a single person according to another articlel about the subject). While I think thats wrong it nowhere as wrong as attacking that guy with your five comrades, while he coming out of Gym, and afterward continued to beat him while he is unconsius. While the white guy are a bunch of racist scumbags, the Jena 6 are bunch of violent thugs, who should be in prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070919/cm_huffpost/065010
 
"The next night, 16-year-old Robert Bailey and a few black friends tried to enter a party attended mostly by whites. When Bailey got inside, he was attacked and beaten.

[jimrtex]

The kid got to go to a party the same day.  He's not scarred for life.

According to Wikipedia it was to get his class ring.

[memphis]

I wouldn't make racially insensitive remarks period, let alone in a school with many black students.  The racist deserved what he got.

It doesn't change the fact that they broke the law. The victim being a racist jackass doesn't change that. If we go about letting people off scott free for breaking the law just because the victim "deserved it" then we cease to have proper law and order. If you wish to live in a society where people get off for breaking the law simply because the mob feels that the victim was a jerk then you've got a serious problem and you're little better than a KKK member who thinks that a lynch mob should get off because "the n deserved it". Personally, I prefer to live in a society where violence is only justified by self-defense.

Exactly right. Maybe the guy did "deserve" it. Nonetheless, that's very subjective and not how law works, nor ought it.

[jimrtex]

If the events described in this article are fully accurate, I don't think it can really be argued that there isn't some sort of double-standard going on.

Read the account in Wikipedia.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The kid got to go to a party the same day.  He's not scarred for life.

According to Wikipedia it was to get his class ring.

I believe wikipedia is right - I heard that on I think i twas CNN.  But that doesn't matter.  If he was so beat up, he'd have stayed in the hospital - or his parents would have interviened even if he wanted to leave (it would've been their choice).

[minionofmidas]

the only person to do anything bad enough to deserve jail time here is the d.a.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

the only person to do anything bad enough to deserve jail time here is the d.a.

No - b/c yo have to punish the blacks for beating up the kid too.  And anybody else who committeda crime here - that's where I end up disagreeing with a lot of civil rights activists - is whenever a travesty like this occurs, they think that the blacks should just get off the hook - but they committed a crime and still should pay.

[Ban my account ffs!]

the only person to do anything bad enough to deserve jail time here is the d.a.

No - b/c yo have to punish the blacks for beating up the kid too.  And anybody else who committeda crime here - that's where I end up disagreeing with a lot of civil rights activists - is whenever a travesty like this occurs, they think that the blacks should just get off the hook - but they committed a crime and still should pay.

I agree.. but I think now that it's been blown up so much and the DA screwed up with his double standard, everyone will get off, rather than punishing everyone.

The whole thing is racially charged, and at the level of the students, it's both sides that are guilty.  It's when you get the law involved that it seems to change and become a double standard.. and that's the sick part. 

[opebo]

the only person to do anything bad enough to deserve jail time here is the d.a.

No - b/c yo have to punish the blacks for beating up the kid too.  And anybody else who committeda crime here - that's where I end up disagreeing with a lot of civil rights activists - is whenever a travesty like this occurs, they think that the blacks should just get off the hook - but they committed a crime and still should pay.

'yo have to punish the blacks'..  That is truly a classic line!  I think we can feel sure Inks, that is one project that has been an eminent success in the land of the free.

Considering the death-threats leveled against these young men, and considering they are living in enemy territory, where they have no civil rights, it is absurd to condemn them for lashing out.