[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.[/QUOTE]
Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it.
[QUOTE]"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.[/QUOTE]
Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed.
[QUOTE]
While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying.
[QUOTE]What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE]
And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write?
[QUOTE]If what you say is true, then I concede that this is unjust, and that the DA should be criminally liable. Of course, your surmisation that "he was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group" is completely baseless, to say the least.[/QUOTE]
What I say is not only true, but verifyable. Go to CNN if you wish to check it. My "surmisation", as you call it, or "likely motive" as I call it, is as I explicitly stated no more than an educated guess, but the most probable one.
[QUOTE]So apparently, based on nothing, you assume that white supremacy reigns supreme in this area. Despite your admittance that the media cannot fully inform us of the situation, I wonder how you can be so sure of this claim. I am not saying that your scenario is false, but I am saying that it is not based on any objective grounds. Only objectivism matters. Anything you assume or any scenarios you envision do not.[/QUOTE]
I'm lost for words. You make no sense whatsoever, I have completely proven everything you claim I haven't.
[QUOTE]Since you seem to be easily confused concerning political affiliations, let me introduce myself. I am not conservative - I am classically liberal. You may better know my type as Libertarian. We operate under the premise of absolute negative fre
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I would just like to point out, for all of the people who are crying racism on behalf of the police department and the DA, that the prosecuting attorney in the case of Jena 6 is an African American; I believe the DA for the county is also African American. The Jena 6 are also African Americans.
I believe this is relevent information for the conversation....as it's clearly not a case of white power abusing these poor African American kids...the power in this case is also an African American.
Discuss
I believe this is relevent information for the conversation....as it's clearly not a case of white power abusing these poor African American kids...the power in this case is also an African American.
Discuss
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?[/QUOTE]
No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post).
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you can point out how my comparison is not parallel?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.[/QUOTE]
You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post).
[/QUOTE]
My true stance? If you break the law, you will be prosecuted and punished under the law by the criminal justice system. There was no legal justification for the attacks. The end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
No one is defending the attack? Then what is this conversation about? If this conversation focused strictly on the miscarriages of justice, then so be it. You made a perfectly valid point (although I haven't verified it, it was a good point) concerning the injustice committed by the DA before. If this conversation were about that, that would be good. However, since most of the conversations is revolving around justification of the attack, it's simply ludicrous.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.[/QUOTE]
Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post.
[/QUOTE]
I was discrediting a previous accusation of a mishandling of justice. The main theme is the mishandling of justice. So far, the only point given in the entire thread up until that point was that concerning the 20-year prison sentences. I quickly discredited that claim, and I simply await more, to either verify or disprove. The theme is clear, and you simply have not gotten to it. There is only this: Was there a mishandling of justice? What are the specific examples? How can they be rectified? The end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> Thomas
Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?[/QUOTE]
No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post).
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you can point out how my comparison is not parallel?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.[/QUOTE]
You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post).
[/QUOTE]
My true stance? If you break the law, you will be prosecuted and punished under the law by the criminal justice system. There was no legal justification for the attacks. The end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post.
[/QUOTE]
No one is defending the attack? Then what is this conversation about? If this conversation focused strictly on the miscarriages of justice, then so be it. You made a perfectly valid point (although I haven't verified it, it was a good point) concerning the injustice committed by the DA before. If this conversation were about that, that would be good. However, since most of the conversations is revolving around justification of the attack, it's simply ludicrous.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.[/QUOTE]
Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post.
[/QUOTE]
I was discrediting a previous accusation of a mishandling of justice. The main theme is the mishandling of justice. So far, the only point given in the entire thread up until that point was that concerning the 20-year prison sentences. I quickly discredited that claim, and I simply await more, to either verify or disprove. The theme is clear, and you simply have not gotten to it. There is only this: Was there a mishandling of justice? What are the specific examples? How can they be rectified? The end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> Thomas
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.[/QUOTE]
Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it.
[/QUOTE]
There is no point to enlisting the "reasons" for a crime, aside from trying to justify it. Unless you are just telling us a story, like we can find on CourtTV or America's Most Wanted. Then okay, I suppose. The only issues are these: Were there any miscarriages of justice? What were they? How can they be addressed? Stay on topic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.[/QUOTE]
Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed.
[/QUOTE]
Why is the system unjust? You never go into any of that. You merely point out that there were racial tensions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying.
[/QUOTE]
There were obviously racial tensions. I was only saying, we do not know to what degree there were. Was it just a couple of kids hanging nooses, or was each group constantly and physically threatened by the other? Perhaps it was only argumentative. If the environment calls for random, unjustifiable attacks - then that is a clear "reason" for this crime. If it is relatively peaceful, then this crime is truly unusual.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE]
And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write?
The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.[/QUOTE]
Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it.
[/QUOTE]
There is no point to enlisting the "reasons" for a crime, aside from trying to justify it. Unless you are just telling us a story, like we can find on CourtTV or America's Most Wanted. Then okay, I suppose. The only issues are these: Were there any miscarriages of justice? What were they? How can they be addressed? Stay on topic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.[/QUOTE]
Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed.
[/QUOTE]
Why is the system unjust? You never go into any of that. You merely point out that there were racial tensions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying.
[/QUOTE]
There were obviously racial tensions. I was only saying, we do not know to what degree there were. Was it just a couple of kids hanging nooses, or was each group constantly and physically threatened by the other? Perhaps it was only argumentative. If the environment calls for random, unjustifiable attacks - then that is a clear "reason" for this crime. If it is relatively peaceful, then this crime is truly unusual.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE]
And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write?
If you take anything from my posts, take this:
The only relevant question to address is this: What were the mishandlings of justice in this case?
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others. Period. In this case, it is whether or not justice was effectively and fairly imparted.
Hopefully this helps to set the theme for a relevant conversations.
The only relevant question to address is this: What were the mishandlings of justice in this case?
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others. Period. In this case, it is whether or not justice was effectively and fairly imparted.
Hopefully this helps to set the theme for a relevant conversations.
soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?
and did david bowie do the right thing?
and did david bowie do the right thing?
^ What she said.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]font color ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To summarize: "them blacks crossed white turf and knew what they was gettin' into. Serves 'em right, an' we don't care about injustice, we care only that we's afraid they'll start an uprising".
You squire, are defending bigotry. Apartheid. Jim Crow.[/QUOTE]
No, font color Whitey Quinn, you still don't get it do you? That's why I said YOU CAN'T LEARN THIS STUFF IN A CLASSROOM.
Ever been to Compton, California? I have. I probably wouldn't walk down the southside at 2 in the morning. Bigotry? No, common sense.
Those kids knew exactly what they were doing, knowing full-well that the "southern dummy" is fully alive and well in this part of the country. Am I defending SD? Of course not, but I surely know it exists. Wake up.
You squire, are defending bigotry. Apartheid. Jim Crow.[/QUOTE]
No, font color Whitey Quinn, you still don't get it do you? That's why I said YOU CAN'T LEARN THIS STUFF IN A CLASSROOM.
Ever been to Compton, California? I have. I probably wouldn't walk down the southside at 2 in the morning. Bigotry? No, common sense.
Those kids knew exactly what they were doing, knowing full-well that the "southern dummy" is fully alive and well in this part of the country. Am I defending SD? Of course not, but I surely know it exists. Wake up.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
and did david bowie do the right thing?[/QUOTE]
I am of the belief that, No, Dave didn't do the right thing. Should he have donated that money to the KKK? No, but it would have had the same effect.
David should have stayed clear of this whole fiasco, but I'm sure it was wife-driven. Nobody knows who Iman is anymore except trekkies.
Now he's taken a side. And, as you can see, he'll get burned for this when all he was trying to do was help.
He should have just bought everyone a copy of Young Americans.
and did david bowie do the right thing?[/QUOTE]
I am of the belief that, No, Dave didn't do the right thing. Should he have donated that money to the KKK? No, but it would have had the same effect.
David should have stayed clear of this whole fiasco, but I'm sure it was wife-driven. Nobody knows who Iman is anymore except trekkies.
Now he's taken a side. And, as you can see, he'll get burned for this when all he was trying to do was help.
He should have just bought everyone a copy of Young Americans.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?
and did david bowie do the right thing?[/QUOTE]I'm with you on this one xD
and did david bowie do the right thing?[/QUOTE]I'm with you on this one xD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others.
QUOTE]
Sir, do you understand the base concept of racism? It is not harmless, because it is a prejudice deeply held by many people who wield power (be it political or physical) over those they loathe. What you seem to be arguing is that as long as someone is quietly, privately racist, and does nothing but sit on their porch drinking lemonade whilst thinking about lynching someone, then it's just dandy.
However, that's not entirely the point of demonizing an entire segment of the human race. People have this crazy little tendency to act on their deeply held beliefs. This action can adopt many subtle guises, and is not always readily discernible, namely because mindsets shape political and social landscapes. Therefore, claiming that racism is only an active social disease when it 'infringes upon the rights of others' is like saying murder is only murder when it's murder. Racism is an active and virulent social force, constantly shaping public policy and opinion.
Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman. The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.
Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks), carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-class Americans as a whole. Classism and racism hand-in-hand, whistling merrily.
Now, (coming back to the subject at hand) let me make myself abundantly clear. There was a crime committed by six students who happened to be black. They beat up a white student who was subsequently treated and released. Indeed, they should be brought to some form of justice regarding their actions. However, the students (who, again just HAPPENED to be black) were then charged with attempted second-degree murder. Now, I would oppose this charge were the offenders black, white or extraterrestrial. It is a ridiculous extrapolation of a schoolyard brawl, a fact that leads me to strongly suspect that racism is the motivating factor behind the inflated charges.
The courtroom fiasco continued when it was determined that, in order to support the lessened charge of aggravated battery, a deadly weapon must needs have been involved in the conflict. The prosecution then stated that the tennis shoes the boys had been wearing were, quote, 'lethal weapons.' The all-white jury readily accepted this ruling.
Huh. Should I be carrying a license for my sneakers?
Oh, and by the by, I wasn't exaggerating about the 20-odd years. When Mychel Bell was found guilty he faced a sentence up to 22 years in length. The sentence was later commuted when Bell's lawyers petitioned for a second trial whereat he would be tried as a minor. However, the other attackers still face the possiblity of similar sentences if convicted, seeing as they were 17 at the time of the assault.
The entire thing is a massive racial fiasco, and brings to light horrid, hulking issues that conservative America likes to conceal. Was there a crime committed? Yes. However, the legal response far outweighs the comparative punishment a roving gang of whites might have faced for a similarly motivated attack. I would encourage any
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others.
QUOTE]
Sir, do you understand the base concept of racism? It is not harmless, because it is a prejudice deeply held by many people who wield power (be it political or physical) over those they loathe. What you seem to be arguing is that as long as someone is quietly, privately racist, and does nothing but sit on their porch drinking lemonade whilst thinking about lynching someone, then it's just dandy.
However, that's not entirely the point of demonizing an entire segment of the human race. People have this crazy little tendency to act on their deeply held beliefs. This action can adopt many subtle guises, and is not always readily discernible, namely because mindsets shape political and social landscapes. Therefore, claiming that racism is only an active social disease when it 'infringes upon the rights of others' is like saying murder is only murder when it's murder. Racism is an active and virulent social force, constantly shaping public policy and opinion.
Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman. The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.
Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks), carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-class Americans as a whole. Classism and racism hand-in-hand, whistling merrily.
Now, (coming back to the subject at hand) let me make myself abundantly clear. There was a crime committed by six students who happened to be black. They beat up a white student who was subsequently treated and released. Indeed, they should be brought to some form of justice regarding their actions. However, the students (who, again just HAPPENED to be black) were then charged with attempted second-degree murder. Now, I would oppose this charge were the offenders black, white or extraterrestrial. It is a ridiculous extrapolation of a schoolyard brawl, a fact that leads me to strongly suspect that racism is the motivating factor behind the inflated charges.
The courtroom fiasco continued when it was determined that, in order to support the lessened charge of aggravated battery, a deadly weapon must needs have been involved in the conflict. The prosecution then stated that the tennis shoes the boys had been wearing were, quote, 'lethal weapons.' The all-white jury readily accepted this ruling.
Huh. Should I be carrying a license for my sneakers?
Oh, and by the by, I wasn't exaggerating about the 20-odd years. When Mychel Bell was found guilty he faced a sentence up to 22 years in length. The sentence was later commuted when Bell's lawyers petitioned for a second trial whereat he would be tried as a minor. However, the other attackers still face the possiblity of similar sentences if convicted, seeing as they were 17 at the time of the assault.
The entire thing is a massive racial fiasco, and brings to light horrid, hulking issues that conservative America likes to conceal. Was there a crime committed? Yes. However, the legal response far outweighs the comparative punishment a roving gang of whites might have faced for a similarly motivated attack. I would encourage any
Well, Lozlan, you make some valid points, but I see holes in mostly everything you said:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman.[/QUOTE]
I remember a black man getting beaten by three police officers in New Orleans. Someone even video-taped it. Turns out the cops WERE justified and the man was given more time.
Are you SURE this black man from Minnesota was unjustly arrested? Were you there? Do you know the facts of the case? Or are you taking HIS word?
[QUOTE] The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice. [/QUOTE]
without quoting the poverty rate, I would say that in Minnesota, that's about right.
[QUOTE]Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks)[/QUOTE]
Oh you just did!! Never mind.
[QUOTE] carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-class Americans as a whole. Classism and racism hand-in-hand, whistling merrily. [/QUOTE]
No sir, the death rate is much higher with crack cocaine than a much higher quality and refined product. The punishment for selling it SHOULD be more severe, and it is.
[QUOTE]It is a ridiculous extrapolation of a schoolyard brawl, a fact that leads me to strongly suspect that racism is the motivating factor behind the inflated charges. [/QUOTE]
I bet you believe the Michael Vick charges were motivated by race as well, right?
Get a grip. This was no schoolyard brawl. Those 6 boys planned to get that kid alone with no chance of escape or help from others. It WAS premeditated.
If you are trying to defend the poor black man, how about educating those 6 boys instead? Nope, most have criminal records already. I suppose that was Whitey's fault also.
Why did they go to school officials for permission to gather under that tree??? Answer that.
Why was permission needed? By those black students? Because THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE INSTIGATING?
Why can't the black man admit that? No, let's hide behind the race card. Just like Michael Vick.
Go smoke your "dro", Lozlan. It's the black thinking like yours that does nothing to make progress. Blame everyone else. Blame whitey. Keep bringing up the 40 acres and the mule.
I have yet to meet a black man who was ACTUALLY a slave at one time in his life. Yet "whitey" has to continue to pay for that. Farrakhan tells you to go out and "take what's ours". Here's a newsflash, Lozlan, if you are black. Slavery has not affected you at all. Quit using it as an excuse. Besides, blacks were the first slave owners. Where's my camel and 40 pieces of gold?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman.[/QUOTE]
I remember a black man getting beaten by three police officers in New Orleans. Someone even video-taped it. Turns out the cops WERE justified and the man was given more time.
Are you SURE this black man from Minnesota was unjustly arrested? Were you there? Do you know the facts of the case? Or are you taking HIS word?
[QUOTE] The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice. [/QUOTE]
without quoting the poverty rate, I would say that in Minnesota, that's about right.
[QUOTE]Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks)[/QUOTE]
Oh you just did!! Never mind.
[QUOTE] carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-class Americans as a whole. Classism and racism hand-in-hand, whistling merrily. [/QUOTE]
No sir, the death rate is much higher with crack cocaine than a much higher quality and refined product. The punishment for selling it SHOULD be more severe, and it is.
[QUOTE]It is a ridiculous extrapolation of a schoolyard brawl, a fact that leads me to strongly suspect that racism is the motivating factor behind the inflated charges. [/QUOTE]
I bet you believe the Michael Vick charges were motivated by race as well, right?
Get a grip. This was no schoolyard brawl. Those 6 boys planned to get that kid alone with no chance of escape or help from others. It WAS premeditated.
If you are trying to defend the poor black man, how about educating those 6 boys instead? Nope, most have criminal records already. I suppose that was Whitey's fault also.
Why did they go to school officials for permission to gather under that tree??? Answer that.
Why was permission needed? By those black students? Because THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE INSTIGATING?
Why can't the black man admit that? No, let's hide behind the race card. Just like Michael Vick.
Go smoke your "dro", Lozlan. It's the black thinking like yours that does nothing to make progress. Blame everyone else. Blame whitey. Keep bringing up the 40 acres and the mule.
I have yet to meet a black man who was ACTUALLY a slave at one time in his life. Yet "whitey" has to continue to pay for that. Farrakhan tells you to go out and "take what's ours". Here's a newsflash, Lozlan, if you are black. Slavery has not affected you at all. Quit using it as an excuse. Besides, blacks were the first slave owners. Where's my camel and 40 pieces of gold?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
i guess im asking, who in the end is the racist ones, or is it even a race issue? is it the whites for prosecuting the blacks for some retaliation, or the fact that the blacks hurt the white kid?
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
i guess im asking, who in the end is the racist ones, or is it even a race issue? is it the whites for prosecuting the blacks for some retaliation, or the fact that the blacks hurt the white kid?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
Between point 7 and 8 of your list other incidents happened according to this website:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/1413220
namely:
"JACQUIE SOOHEN: A few days after the nooses were hung, the entire black student body staged an impromptu demonstration, crowding underneath the tree during lunch hour. Justin Purvis, the student who first asked to sit underneath the tree, described how the protest came about.
JUSTIN PURVIS: It was like, the first beginning, in the courtyard, they said, “Y’all want to go stand under the tree?” We said, “Yeah.” They said, “If you go, I’ll go. If you go, I’ll go.” One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went.
JACQUIE SOOHEN: The school responded to the protest by calling police and the district attorney. At an assembly the same day, the District Attorney Reed Walters, accompanied by armed policeman, addressed the students. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers, one of the few black teachers at the school, was there. She recalls the DA's words to the assembled high schoolers.
MICHELLE ROGERS: The kids didn't say anything. They were listening. The kids were quiet. And so, District Attorney Reed Walters, you know, proceeded to tell those kids that “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.” And the kids were just -- it was like in awe that the district -- you know, Reed Walters would tell these kids that. He held a pen in his hand and told those kids that, “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
JACQUIE SOOHEN: A series of incidents followed throughout the fall. In October, a black student was beaten for entering a private all-white party. Later that month, a white student pulled a gun on a group of black students at a gas station, claiming self-defense. The black students wrestled the gun away and reported the incident to police. They were charged with assault and robbery of the gun. No charges were ever filed against the white students in either incident. Then, in late November, someone tried to burn down the high school, creating even more tension."
If all this is true the school has failed to address the problem properly. If all this is true, there is a racial issue. And - no matter if it's a racial issue or not - the charges against the underaged offenders just do not match the crime.
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
Between point 7 and 8 of your list other incidents happened according to this website:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/1413220
namely:
"JACQUIE SOOHEN: A few days after the nooses were hung, the entire black student body staged an impromptu demonstration, crowding underneath the tree during lunch hour. Justin Purvis, the student who first asked to sit underneath the tree, described how the protest came about.
JUSTIN PURVIS: It was like, the first beginning, in the courtyard, they said, “Y’all want to go stand under the tree?” We said, “Yeah.” They said, “If you go, I’ll go. If you go, I’ll go.” One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went.
JACQUIE SOOHEN: The school responded to the protest by calling police and the district attorney. At an assembly the same day, the District Attorney Reed Walters, accompanied by armed policeman, addressed the students. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers, one of the few black teachers at the school, was there. She recalls the DA's words to the assembled high schoolers.
MICHELLE ROGERS: The kids didn't say anything. They were listening. The kids were quiet. And so, District Attorney Reed Walters, you know, proceeded to tell those kids that “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.” And the kids were just -- it was like in awe that the district -- you know, Reed Walters would tell these kids that. He held a pen in his hand and told those kids that, “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
JACQUIE SOOHEN: A series of incidents followed throughout the fall. In October, a black student was beaten for entering a private all-white party. Later that month, a white student pulled a gun on a group of black students at a gas station, claiming self-defense. The black students wrestled the gun away and reported the incident to police. They were charged with assault and robbery of the gun. No charges were ever filed against the white students in either incident. Then, in late November, someone tried to burn down the high school, creating even more tension."
If all this is true the school has failed to address the problem properly. If all this is true, there is a racial issue. And - no matter if it's a racial issue or not - the charges against the underaged offenders just do not match the crime.