Hateful speech isn't hateful action

New York - Here's a quick news quiz: What do the Jena 6, San Diego Padres outfielder Milton Bradley, and the protests against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University have in common?

In all three cases, Americans appear to have forgotten the difference between hateful speech and hateful action. And when we lose sight of that distinction, we lose what should be most distinctive about America itself.

Start with the six African American teenagers who were arrested for attempted murder last December in the beating of a white classmate in Jena, La. The arrests came after several other racial incidents in Jena, including white students hanging nooses from a tree at their school to warn blacks against sitting under it. Blacks complained that the whites who hung the nooses were simply suspended from school, while the African Americans who beat their classmate faced criminal charges.

But there's an excellent reason for punishing these behaviors differently: One involved symbols; the other involved fists. Although the attempted-murder charge against the black teens was clearly excessive (and since reduced), they committed an obvious act of physical violence. The noose-hanging white students didn't.

Nor did the umpire who hurled a slur at Mr. Bradley last Sunday. Bradley charged the umpire and fell to the ground, sustaining a season-ending knee injury. "I'm not going to stand pat and accept this," he told reporters, "because I didn't do nothing wrong."

Nothing wrong? Like the racist noose-hangers in Jena, the umpire should be disciplined if he said something gratuitously insulting to Bradley. But no slur can excuse or justify Bradley's response. A hateful act is always worse than a hateful word.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070927/cm_csm/yzimmerman27

:popcorn:

It's munchin' time!
:popcorn:

:popcorn:
:beer:

with a stick enough times that it turns around and bites your arm off, it's the alligator's fault completely?

Poking is action. The poster's whole point is that speech isn't action.

of using "poke" in the figurative sense. Fine. Come up behind a bear and scream at it at the top of your lungs and then blame it for turning around and mauling you.

this is no way comparable to a bunch of teens beating up a single person. No matter how bad what that one person does...it in no way gives the group the right to commit an act of violence.

MLK was real big on nonviolence.

were clearly in fear of their life. What was MLK's stance on self-defense?

on edit: I'm more of a Malcolm X guy myself.

:wtf: That's not self defense.

the kids felt threatened. And the kid that got beat was in on the racial slurs and the threats.

:shrug:

So if someone calls me a rotten name, threatens me then I'm right to get a bunch of friends together to beat the hell out of him or her?

Sorry, I just don't think like that. I teach my kids that violence is never right unless you are directly threatened at the time. I also teach them to never bully, not call people names and it's far better to walk away.

This whole thing has been handled wrong by majority of the people involved and the town itself did little to ease tensions to begin with. If it wasn't a racist town before it certainly has that label now deserved or not.

so much so that your points are hardly worth responding to

all that aside, however, you ignore two major factors. one, i assume you weren't there (and neither, I assume, was anyone else here) and the subtleties of what happened is all filtered through press including exactly what the white kid did to instigate. keep that in mind when simplifying the actions of "one kid", one person can cause a lot of harm. two, your point about the kid not physically acting is skewed in this case because his ACTION was to hang a symbol on a tree that is loaded with racial baggage in the part of the country that he lives. he knew it and you can bet the kids to whom it was directed knew it.

see how you're vastly over-simplifying? everything that happens is contextual and to try to remove it from that context is disingenuous and dishonest.

wrong.

Now, I have no doubt a lot of people think this kid might have deserved it and it's possible he might have...but it in no way justifies a group of people beating up a lone individual.

I agree there is a lot going on here aside from this one incident, but I still can't see the justification for it. I don't raise my children to react to a situation with violence. Never have. I raised my children to either work it out or walk away. They know that if they are physically attacked...it is the only reason violence is acceptable.

Now, I have no doubt a lot of people think this kid might have deserved it and it's possible he might have...but it in no way justifies a group of people beating up a lone individual.

You need to read through this passage closely one more time and think about what you've typed here, it doesn't seem to comport.

All of this aside, you have unsuccessfully offered a valid contradiction to my accusation that you are working outside the meme put forth by the author whose piece you post, which is that free speech is the driving factor behind the unrelated stories he cites. It has not anything to do with whether or not the Jena 6 were justified or not in attacking this kid. YOU have completely missed the point of the author whose work you post, truly sad and pathetic.

Your posts expose you as one chomping at the bit to persecute black kids in the south for reacting (maybe overreacting) to a violent gesture by a group, that's group, of white kids levied in their direction, a gesture which, in their part of the country, was entirely loaded with racial and historical context and baggage.

And here your posts can essentially be summed up as defending said actions. Disgusting. Allow me to suggest a place where shit like this is more readily accepted:

www.freerepublic.com

thanks for playing :thumbsdown:

is wrong I'm racist???? :wtf:

I don't justify the hanging of those nooses anymore than I justify the beating of one person by a group of people.

I don't believe in violence and MLK wasn't a fan of it either. He did pretty well with the nonviolent approach, too.

as I do about fly-fishing

and nice try you turing this into ME calling YOU a racist. you're not a racist (that I know of) you're just someone who ostensibly posts an article on a liberal board about FREE SPEECH and sees fit to twist the points of the author of said article to fit you view that black kids in the south should no have responded to a series of violent actions directed at them in a way befitting of the ORIGINATING offense.

it's okay, you've made you're points amply clear!

and I was talking about my own viewpoints after the discussion got going. Sorry you can't tell the difference.

sorry that you feel so comfortable in continually making your own myopia someone else's problem.

that's the whole point of my going up against you, good sir, is that I CAN tell what you're doing, the canard you're throwing, the bullshit you're spewing with this shitbird thread and that is to take the points of one individual with regard to FREE SPEECH and skew them into your own defense of the UNEQUAL JUSTICE VETTED OUT FOR BLACKS IN THE SOUTH.

i'm so glad you're so comfortable arguing such a position. as i said earlier, i think you'll find it much more accepted at a certain OTHER site. let me know how that works out...

They were threatened with a gun. When they took the gun from the people threatening them and went to the police to report it, they were charged with a crime. They never got any help. What were they supposed to do?

Right. By any means necessary.

"There was at least one credible witness that says the victim was knocked out by a single blow from behind and that Mychal was NOT the person who threw the punch. There is a possibility that this kid didn't even do it.

Coach Benjy Lewis gave two statements immediately after the school incident in which he clearly states that Justin Barker was facing him when Malcolm Shaw (not Mychal Bell) struck Barker from behind. “I saw Malcolm Shaw hit Justin Barker with his right fist to the right side of Justin’s head, right around the temple,” Lewis wrote. “Justin went down face first, knocked out . . .” Most witnesses agree that a single punch knocked Barker out cold. The only adult who witnessed the punch says Mychal Bell didn’t throw it."

"Ms. Martin’s list
* At trial, special education teacher Kristy Martin listed off the names of the boys who surrounded Justin Barker as if they were clear in her memory. Although she was forced to admit that she never saw a single student touch Justin Barker, Martin’s ability to name names seemed very convincing. Martin is the only witness thus far who has provided a list of attackers longer than three names.
* In a written statement, given immediately after the incident, Coach Wayne Spence states that he was taking names of rowdy students in the gym during the lunch hour. “I had a list that Ms. Martin obtained from me,” he wrote. This suggests that Kristy Martin specifically asked Spence for the list of names the day of the fight. This explains why she is the only witness to remember more than two or three members of the Jena 6. Most eye witnesses can’t identify a single assailant by name. Most of the students who gave eyewitness statements after the December 4 altercation at the school make references to “a bunch of black kids”.

"* Justin Cooper was the only witness at trial to testify that Mychal Bell kicked Justin Barker as the victim lay unconscious on the ground.
Since Justin Cooper was one of the boys who admitted to hanging the nooses at Jena High School at the beginning of the school year, he can hardly be seen as an objective or credible witness."

it is figurative and not literal.

Why didn't you invite me to go with you to the strawman sale?

or are you just that clueless.

Didn't the "strawman sale" argument indicate to you that my "admission" was verbal irony (i.e. sarcasm)?

So one has to ask the question, why were the white kids not held legally responsible for their violence against the Bailey child.
Why was no one held accountable when a shotgun was pulled on the teens? Why should the black kids beheld legally responsible and not the white kids?

It's not rocket science.

And I don't see how these actions excuse the assault on Barker

and thinking human beings are a poor comparison, unless of course you are reducing the african american youths to being mindless animals, which I doubty you are inferring.

See everyone wants to do things without ANY accountability. To lay the total responsibility on "racist white america" or slavery.

saying blacks are just like animals wasn't had upthread yesterday. Thanks for reading it all before tossing in that little strawman one more time. Did you and the other guy go to a buy-one-get-one sale or what?

How can you possibily talk about Jena and responsibility and come done on the side against the black kids? If this is a story about responsibility, the black kids were left out to dry by EVERYONE everytime their life was threatened. The cops wouldn't help them; the school wouldn't help them; nobody. And you are somehow shocked and disgusted at the kids that society wouldn't help for taking matters in their own hands when they were threatened again. SHAME ON YOU. And shame on everyone that comes to the same conclusion. Society let these kids down in a HUGE way and continue to do so. Jena is a clear example of a major portion of this country wanting to return back to Jim Crowe times.

I am saying that in regards to accountability, they are as accountable for their actions as the white racists were for their actions. It isn't black or white in my eyes.

AS for shame, bring your own personal demons somewhere else.

You are making that assumption from someone who lives in a pretty clear social contract. If someone threatens you with a gun, you have a pretty good feeling that the police will be on your side. To those young boys, it had to feel much more like a state of anarchy and if you can't see that then you need to reflect on it. Their lives were threatened by someone with a shotgun. Luckily they were able to disarm the SOB that was going to kill them. They RIGHTLY went to the police to tell them what happened. What did they get for the societally correct actions? Charged with theft and assault. Multiply that by the other instances of threats against their life that went unpunished and tell me that they had ANY sense that ANYONE was going to help them. What should they have done when the next white asshole tells them that he is going to kill them? Run to the police? No help there in the past and they probably think they will be charged with another crime for receiving death threats. Run to the school authorities? No help there either in the past. What should they have done? Let the guy actually kill them so that he may or may not be punished for that crime? They were living in a state of anarchy and stop judging them like they weren't. Should things have gotten that far? No. But they did. To hold them accountable for the bullshit atmosphere that was created for them is ridiculous. And don't give me this "I'm colorblind" BS. It IS black and white in this instance. It is that distinction that led these kids to believe that they had no society to fall back on for help. It might not be black and white to you, but it WAS black and white to those kids and it was the whites in that community that made it so.

is that it is ok for people to react with violence if they perceive themselves to be in immediate danger. I agree with that. However, jumping others is not self defense.

Er, they're called "laws" for a reason. They mandate certain punishments for certain speech that is motivated by racial prejudice or other sorts of hate. The nooses are clearly of that sort of speech. Ergo, the writer is a dumbass.

:crazy:

Ethnic Intimidation = a "hate crime" (felony). Justin Barker use of racial slur and taunting Bailey about the noose hanging seconds before he incited a riot on school ground is also a felony.

I thought this was 'Democratic' Underground too! :rofl:

As in, 'democratic' ...

Not the Third Reich! :silly:

There is no such thing as a hate speech law in the US and the very concept should be abhorent to Americans. The First Ammendment right to freedom of speech has few exceptions (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or attempting to start a riot)

However, if your threaten somebody verbally or in writing, that can be a crime.

while using an inaccurate phrase. I was referring to (or meant to) speech that directly or indirectly implies a threat of physical harm. Thus the nooses. My bad. (:crazy:)

but it all comes down to what a jury of 12 people will believe. A jury has to believe the threat was serious enough to warrant punishment.

I suppose it depends on what context a noose were used, wheather or not it was a threat (remember too, it always comes back to what 12 people will believe). In addition, you can always get somebody for vandalism, disorderly conduct, or trespassing on private property... or inciting a riot (some drunk teens were arrested in Jena on this charge because they were dragging around nooses out of a pickup truck). For instance, flag burning isn't illegal in the US even though many conservatives consider it highly offensive (while liberals tend not to think so), but if you burn somebody else's flag, or you burn a flag in an unsafe manner, you can be charged with arson or destruction of property.

:hug:

:shrug:

He only told others to commit genocide. His hands must be clean then.:eyes:

:shrug:

If Billy Bob tells somebody that negroes are marked by Cain and children of Satan, that's not the same as Hitler ordering his government and military to exterminate jews. One involves the dissemination of an idea (albeit unpopular and offensive), the other is an order that is punishable if disobeyed; coerced. So it is as if Hitler himself actually killed those people. His underlings are also culpable.

Now, if Billy Bob says "I'm going come into your house, Negro, and kill you and your family in your sleep"... that is a crime.

and probably has family who helped to keep Segregation in place for 100 years!!!

Huge damage is done by racial hatreds -- from barring people of color from equal educations to
poisoning society's well with hate speech.

Not any different, actually, than the "preaching" of gender inferiority by patriarchal religions which has done such horrific damage to females all over the world --

There are connections from hate speech directly to violence ---

...on your property, will you say that it's just speech?

I would call that a death threat, which is speech which should be illegal and is.

The students who hung the nooses were expelled as they should have been, but those who beat up one of the ones who did it were in the wrong as well. Murder charges were over the top and the DA and a few others are as racist as they come, but that doesn't excuse resorting to violence.

Especially if he starts the fight.

:shrug:

So it isn't self-defense.

Obviously the authorities in Jena have no credibility.

that the kid who got knocked out was a friend of one of the noose-hangers.

I wasn't there and I'm not getting this info from legal documents; I'm just saying that I read it in multiple places.

the black kid got the crap beaten out of him at the party. There were many incidents between the nooses and the school fight. But, the school fight seems to be directly related to the party fight.
Once again, no charges were filed against the kids who beat the crap out of the Bailey boy. Barker didn't have anything to do with the nooses. Barker was simply taunting and making fun of the kid who had the crap beaten out of him at the party.

IMO, the nooses had nothing to do with the school fight (well indirectly). The black kids got the message that they could be harmed and NO ONE was coming to their defense. Sure, they shouldn't resort to violence.
Tell me, what should they have done? When they reported that someone threatened them with a gun, they were charged with assault and theft of the weapon that the man was going to use to kill them.
I don't know what they should have done. But, the message was clear. They were on their own. NO ONE was going to help them. That's a scary feeling for me as an adult. I'm sure it's a terrifying feeling for teenagers.

White dude was going into a store. He was threatened by a black dude and a few of that guy's buddies. White dude then goes to his truck and gets a gun. The gun was not pulled as a threat, but in self defense. So I don't see how he should be charged. They did take his gun and apparently were involved in a scuffle to do so. That is theft and assault.

There probably should not be charges that way though, since the fact that he went to his truck and then returned makes it less than self defense. But was that really what happened? Maybe they followed him to the truck and took the gun right after he grabbed it, but then he managed to drive away. Otherwise how did he get away after they took the gun?

Of course, they claimed that the white kid they threatened was one of the ones who had beaten the black kid at the party. Surprisingly however, the law does not give you the right to threaten or assault even people who have assaulted you in the past. Life is a little bit like football. One guy punches or shoves another and the other guy retaliates. Nine times out of ten, the guy who retaliates is the one who gets called for unsportsmanlike conduct. Not fair maybe, but you are not allowed to retaliate or escalate. Also, I know one black kid who claims that I stole $75 from him (or that I found and took $75 that was his). If he and his friends assault me at some store, are you gonna automatically take his word for it? I must be in the wrong. I must be lying. My white skin proves it.

There was an argument between a white adult and a few black students at a convenience store. White guy LEAVES, goes to his truck, RETURNS with a SHOTGUN, and points it at the kids.

But instead of scattering, they immediately rush him and succeed in wrestling the gun away. (That took real starch. Most people would've frozen or run.)

White guy reportedly says, "gimmee my gun back". Or words to that effect.

Not being complete morons, the kids refuse. They retreat, taking the gun with them.



Attempting to excuse the holes in your version of events, you intone

I must be in the wrong. I must be lying. My white skin proves it.

:nopity:

Here's a radical suggestion: how about tossing the self-pity and just concentrating on the facts of the situation:

The white guy claimed to be "threatened". You said he pulled a gun in self defense. But the fact is he left the immediate vicinity of the argument to get a weapon, and returned with it.

That's not self defense.

In many states, self-defense statutes allow a person to stand his ground. But LEAVING a dispute and COMING BACK armed with a deadly weapon is escalation, not "standing your ground".

When he had gone to his truck, why didn't he just get in and drive off and call the police if he had legitimately felt threatened?

Besides, when the kids had successfully disarmed the man, why didn't they harm him -- if they were such a "threat" to him?

Thing is, the white adult may have received the usual Automatic Victim treatment from Jena's authorities (no surprise there), but his behavior throughout the incident marks him the aggressor.

http://cheerfuliconoclast.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena-shotgun-incident-i-knew-there.html

I read varying reports. The above might be a rightwing site. It came up when I googled "Jena shotgun" just now, and seems to confirm my various speculations.

There are various version of events. Including one where one kid follows the white kid and grabs the gun just as the white guy is grabbing it. But they all involve an altercation/argument - three against one. One version that does not exist is three guys walking down the street minding their own business who are threatened with a gun for nothing except the color of their skin.

Just saying that in a white said/black said, I am not necessarily gonna assume that the white guy is a lying racist a$$hole and that the black guys are all gentle and meek scholars. That does not make me a liar.

"The white guy claimed to be "threatened". You said he pulled a gun in self defense. But the fact is he left the immediate vicinity of the argument to get a weapon, and returned with it.

That's not self defense.

In many states, self-defense statutes allow a person to stand his ground. But LEAVING a dispute and COMING BACK armed with a deadly weapon is escalation, not "standing your ground"."

A couple of years ago (I believe it was), a kid with a gun showed up at his high school and began firing away.

The principal was in his office when he heard the shots. He got up, left the building, went out to the parking lot, and retrieved his rifle from the trunk of his car. He then re-entered the school building and subdued the shooter.

Applying the above argument to this situation would mean that the principal was not acting in self defense but escalating the situation, for the sole reason that he left the building and came back armed (with a "deadlier" weapon than the kid had).

Regarding the tussle-with-the-gun incident in Jena, I personally believe all parties involved are at fault, based on the (limited) information given on this thread and in press articles.

A couple of years ago (I believe it was), a kid with a gun showed up at his high school and began firing away.

The principal was in his office when he heard the shots. He got up, left the building, went out to the parking lot, and retrieved his rifle from the trunk of his car. He then re-entered the school building and subdued the shooter.

Applying the above argument to this situation would mean that the principal was not acting in self defense but escalating the situation, for the sole reason that he left the building and came back armed (with a "deadlier" weapon than the kid had).

Utterly ridiculous analogy. I would not have thought that I'd have to spell this out, but anyway, here goes:

The Luke Woodham case was a mass shooting incident committed by a determined attacker who was out to kill. The Jena convenience store incident was an argument in which the white man involved walked off, went to his truck, got a gun, came back, and pointed the weapon at the black high school students he had exchanged words with.

Would the Luke Woodham mass murder incident have ended if principal had gone to his car and driven away? No. That's why going back into the school with his own weapon was in legitimate defense of self and others.

Would the Jena convenience store incident have ended if the man had just gotten in his truck and driven off? Yes. That's why his actions DO constitute escalation rather than self defense. That remains the case even if we leave aside the consideration that the boys were more seriously threatened by HIM and his deadly weapon, and that when they had taken that weapon into their possession, they retreated -- further revealing his claimed fears of "threat" as groundless.

Did I really have to go and spell that out for you? Really?

Regarding the tussle-with-the-gun incident in Jena, I personally believe all parties involved are at fault, based on the (limited) information given on this thread and in press articles.

How magnanimous of you. In other words, the the white guy is guilty because he shoved a gun in some kids' faces. And the black kids are guilty because they disarmed a white man, which embarrassed him.


:argh:

Yeah, not too bright! :eyes:

He said he was threatened. I don't believe it. A black citizen of Jena, LA. would have to be seriously suicidal to threaten one of Jena, LA.'s fine citizens.

You're entitled to believe what you will.

that's what those uppity blacks in Jena get for thinking they can actually expect to be protected.\




And just incase someone reading this is dense :sarcasm:

Or what should they have done in response to the taunting? Not sure which one your post is asking (prob'ly I'm not reading it right, but couldja help me? :) )

And, that eye witness testimony was by the noose hanger.

as a death threat. I guess it depends on how it is used. Honestly I don't see how it could be anything but an implied physical threat.

... If you want to rank them, according to some offhand-made-up prioritization, fine. But you're ranking acts.

Maybe I need a tune up!

:rofl:

QUOTE: In all three cases, Americans appear to have forgotten the difference between hateful speech and hateful action. And when we lose sight of that distinction, we lose what should be most distinctive about America itself.UNQUOTE

This is no different from organized patriarchal religions teaching hatred and intolerance for women, or for homosexuals, or for Jews or Africans, or pagans or native Indians . . .

Preaching such hatreds from their pulpits over hundreds of years creates hatred and intolerance within their members which can be acted upon --

There is a message in a noose -- it is intended to create fear and to control someone else's behavior --

It is the hateful word which inspires and encourages the hateful act of violence ---

Maybe we should just ignore the fine young gentlemen who have posted the vital information about the Jena families (as well as Al Sharpton's mother) urging other fine gentlemen to take matters into their own hands. After all no action has been taken.
We have no reason to fear and believe that some nut job will decide to exact righteous justice upon those who chose not stay in their place. There's no history that would compel me to believe there's a slight possibility that any of those families will be hurt. I'm sure the DA will protect all citizens equally.

inciting violence. Maybe not legally, but factoring in the very ugly history of lynching, that's what they were doing.

And speech, my friend, has been responsible for a major amount of violence in the world. In addition, your recounting of the Jena situations, neglects the whole history of what happened. Research it.

I didn't write it. I agree that violence is never okay and that hate speech should never be acceptable. I thought it was an interesting POV and was curious to see how others would respond to it.

you're repeating, and what's worse, skewing, the author's points all throughout this thread. with all due respect, to say you're objectively presenting an "interesting POV" is bull poo poo.

I'm not even attempting that. Hate speech is wrong in my eyes no matter who it comes from and in this country hate speech is allowed no matter what it may incite. I don't like it, but that's what happens with free speech.

My opinion throughout this thread is that violence is wrong. A group beating up one person is wrong no matter their justification. That's my two cents.

I still think the POV of the article is an interesting one and I was curious what people would think about the article. If you don't like it and don't agree with it...say so. I'm interested to know because I like different opinions.

you're more interested in hashing out the particulars of an incident to which you were not party. neither was anyone else here yet you seem perfectly comfortable in defending one set of "victims" and castigating and marginalizing another. truly pathetic. as i said in another post, take this tripe elsewhere.

The author of the POV in the OP draws up an invalid analogy, in comparing the hanging of nooses to the baseball umpire. Even if s/he had left out the umpire analogy and simply went with the "nooses are hate speech, not hate action", the point of view is still invalid. Yeah--invalid.

I go so far to say "invalid" because an aspect of the noose-hanging incident that I have noticed being missed (both in articles and discussions) is the very fact that the noose-hanging occured on a high school campus--and involved school property (the tree). I'm not a lawyer nor a paralegal, but I have been a public school teacher, and I know that, regardless of it being state property, the rules change on K-12 campuses.

Do you have the right to march on a public street carrying a sign with a huge swastika on it? Yes. Do you have the right to do it on a K-12 school campus (during school hours, at least)? No.

The argument of "The noose was just speech" doesn't fly. It doesn't matter where that school was located nor the ethnic/racial make-up of the student body; that shit doesn't belong on a K-12 school campus. Were it part of a experiential project sponsored by an academic department or club that had received approval from the school's administration, it would be a different story. It wasn't. The "speech"/action in question was detrimental to the learning environment, was not part of a school-sponsored activity, did not receive approval from the school's administration, and caused many students to feel emotionally and physically intimidated and threatened. There is no argument. The kids who hung those nooses violated district policy and, I believe, the civil rights of the student body.

The only valid analogy would be a situation which took place on a high school campus in an area experiencing analogous social tensions within the student body and surrounding community.

The fight that took place on the school campus cannot be compared with the fights/"s.cuffles" that took place OFF campus. Also, with regards to the gun, that involved private property, and took place ON private property that was a public area (meaning open to the public). The fight at the party--again, different situation. I don't remember if everyone involved in the fight had been invited to the party, but again, that would affect things as well. Whose house was this party at? Who initiated the fight? Who was invited/who crashed? But again, the fight took place in a private home, at a private event. Different story.

That brings me to Barker. Again, it took place on a public, K-12 school campus. He taunted--but didn't touch. What--if any--is the bullying policy of that district/state? What did he say, exactly? Can it be classified as verbal assault? Regardless of any of this, he no doubt is subject to disciplinary action by the school, at minimum, for violating policy related to student conduct on campus during school hours.

The guy who hit him? He blew it. Yeah, Barker's a little shit who deserved an ass-kicking. But kicking people's asses on school grounds, and in response to a jerkhead's taunting is immature, inappropriate and ILLEGAL. Unfortunately, it was a "perfect storm" in terms of the guy who clobbered him getting busted because a) multiple people were targeting/ganging-up on one, b) it happened on school grounds, during school hours, c) Barker was punched in the head, d) Barker was knocked unconscious, and e) Barker got kicked while he was down AND unconscious. All of these things, I have no doubt, contributed to the severity of the charges filed against the assailant. It is also for these reasons (and possibly others), no doubt, that there is such a discrepancy between this assault and the others with regard to charges and sentencing.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but 10 years ago, an ex-boyfriend beat the crap out of me, and I remember when the docs, nurses, and social worker in the ER and later the police and my attorney were asking what happened, the very first questions were, "Did he knock you out" and "Did he hit your face". My lawyer explained to me that had I lost consciousness for even a mere two seconds, my case would have gone immediately to Superior Court (i.e. felony). Same thing if he had cracked or broken any bones. It would not have mattered if I had partied all night after the incident (I didn't)--if he had knocked me out, he would have been arrested immediately and the case would have gone to the higher court. The key difference between my case and the Jena case is that mine was domestic violence; however, my lawyer did tell me that even with non-domestic violence assaults, everything changes when someone gets knocked unconscious.

I wish I could have been on the jury for that trial--and be in the courtroom for the upcoming ones. I strongly suspect that racism is involved with this whole legal mess, but I know nothing about Louisiana law--nor law enforcement procedures in general--to go one way or the other. Clearly this campus environment (at the very least) has been like a poorly monitored pressure cooker--and it finally blew. Ultimately, the responsibility for allowing such tension to foment lies with school personnel, community leaders, and, of course, the parents of all students involved.

My main question with regards to this whole fucking mess is simply: Where are the adults? I'm seeing nothing but hot-headed, impulsive, and irresponsible teenagers and a bunch of adults who are acting like hot-headed, impulsive, and irresponsible teenagers! The school's faculty and staff were either on a different planet or simply too damned lazy to notice (or even care) about the growing racial tension on campus. How the hell did those assholes even have the opportunity to hang nooses on the tree in the first place--on a school night? No way was I allowed to go running around town late at night when I was in high school! Whose house was this party at? Any adult supervision? What's with a grown man bringing a loaded firearm into a STORE to threaten a bunch of obnoxious, smart-mouthed teenagers? And the little shit doing the taunting? His parents should be kicking his ass, not leaving it up to the kids at school (or law enforcement, for that matter)--and they should have done it when he was in Junior High. And when did the parents of the kids who beat him up plan on teaching their kids how to control their tempers?

This whole thing stinks like raw sewage. There are no innocents and no heroes in this mess. Everyone in that town is responsible. There were opportunities to rise above the vile and putrid in the course of all of this but no one did. It was machoism, vigilante justice, and victimhood at its worst.

And the ultimate symbol of this disgusting situation and the mediocrity of all those involved: The school chopped down the tree. Talk about injustice!

Thanks for your honesty. You're right, too. They could have handled this far better without having the eyes of the world on them and it does seem like half the town is made up of half-wits who figured they could do it their way with little to no interference. Everyone from the school, the teenagers, the parents, the law, and anyone else involved dropped the ball. It's a tragedy, too, because deserved or not, this town will have an ugly label slapped on it for years to come which will be next to impossible to take off.

Really. You can't come up with ONE scenario where that would be justified? You can't possibily be that absolutist. Hell, I have about a dozen in my head right now. One guy is raping a woman and has a knife to her throat telling her that after he is done with her he is going to slit her throat open and cum in the wound. A group of friends and I come across the situation and beat the piss out of the guy and save the life of the woman. That is wrong? Don't forget your quotation in my subject line, "NO MATTER THEIR JUSTIFICATION." Once you honestly admit that I am right, now we are just arguing about where to put that line because clearly there is a line where it is right.

And if you plan to go far, far out of your way to make yourself personally and vehemently loathed, you should probably watch your back.

Look: Justin Barker is a punk -- no two ways about that. With an attitude like his, he was guaranteed to get his ass kicked eventually. He's just lucky his little wake-up call didn't come in the parking lot of a biker bar at 3 am.

I thought it was an interesting POV.

And I'm not interested in threatening anyone for expressing their opinion as you obviously are.

:rofl:

And I'm not interested in threatening anyone for expressing their opinion as you obviously are.

Instead of getting caught up in self-pity (I can't always run my mouth without consequences. I'm being threatened, squelched!), why not focus on the moral of story:

If you're behaving yourself, and someone attacks you, then you've been wronged and they must be punished.

However, if you've spent the hours leading up to the attack taunting your attackers and deliberately inciting violence, then we'd have to consider whether at least some of the ensuing ass-kicking was merely what you'd bargained for.

but I won't respond by getting a group of people to beat up one person. It's wrong no matter the reasons for it.

but I won't respond by getting a group of people to beat up one person. It's wrong no matter the reasons for it.

No, you won't -- because you won't have to. Your government will do that sort of thing for you.

That's precisely what the authorities in Jena refused to do when they blatantly sided with the white students and their allies who had started the unrest. Over the course of several months, it became clear that any consequences for threatening and harming blacks would have to be imposed by the blacks themselves, or by no one.

So some of them drew a line in the sand and told one particularly nasty little punk not to cross it. He did, and now we get to listen to all this boo-hooing from the right.



:eyes:

You can't put a noose in a tree to intimidate a black person.

Both forms of speech have the likely outcome of causing physical harm.

...that went conspicuously unpunished. That's what I find reprehensible. A black kid was beaten up by three guys at a "white" party that he was INVITED to...and no one was charged. A white man pulled a gun on three black kids, who wrested it from him and went to the police...and THEN were charged with theft of a firearm. That's what's really galling me about media coverage of this case. The noose-hanging on school grounds was no doubt a threat of violence and should have been punished more severely, but apart from that real acts of violence *were* committed against black kids, and law enforcement *was* informed of these acts but failed to do anything about them.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that violence as a method to combat hatred and injustice is neither moral nor productive, but when you put a bunch of adolescent kids in a situation where they are subject to blatant injustice and the genuine risk of physical harm, all I can say is I have empathy for them when they see no choice but to act in a destructive and violent manner.

... in response.

Justin Barker crossed that line -- by spewing an endless stream of racial abuse and crowing over a beating one of the whites had inflicted on one of the blacks (and had gotten a slap on the wrist for), and he got nailed for it.


White supremacists, the Jena authories, and most conservatives are furious over this because like the very Jihadists they affect to abhor, they sincerely believe that they are a special caste, and that it is always up to the rest of the world to appease them -- no matter how outrageous and provocative their behavior might be.

I wish I could recommend a single post. I can't believe that other people can't see this. I can't believe that people on a progressive board are coming down so hard on a group of kids that society basically shat upon.

There is a difference between thought, speech and acting out.

I think that the facts as alleged DO NOT constitute self-defense, and if the charges can be proved, the defendants need to be punished.

HOWEVER, it is impossible to remove the incident from the context of racial hatred that was *allowed* to fester in the school and community by administrators, law enforcement officers, and local prosecutors. All these factors, along the defendants' age suggest leniency. What these young men did *was* wrong.


However, I think the adults in this story are the real villians. I would like to know if the school administrators that gave the noose incident a wink and a nod can be held criminally responsible for the incident. Hatred is like a poison that should have been rooted out of the school immediately so that it could not fester and spread. Quite frankly, I think it's miraculous that this incident didn't turn out worse given the climate of hatred and intimidation.

Hanging a noose to scare black people into thinking someone may come for them in the middle of the night to hang them IS an obvious act of "physical violence."

Here's an example of a historical precedent, the over-arching context of the Jena 6 incident: