Quote:JENA, Louisiana (CNN) -- Thousands of protesters clogged the tiny town of Jena, Louisiana, Thursday to show their indignation over what they consider unjust, unequal punishments meted out in two racially charged incidents.
They swarmed over the grounds of Jena High School, surrounding the stump of the tree from which nooses hung in early August 2006, about three months before six black teens known as the "Jena 6" were accused of beating a white classmate.
There was an aura of a pilgrimage near the former oak tree, with many people touching the stump and some retrieving a lump of dirt, said CNN's Eric Marrapodi. He said the part of the town he was in was ill-prepared for the crowds -- no water or toilets were available.
In the background, groups shouted "Black power" and "No justice, no peace."
The demonstrations shut down the town of 3,000 in central Louisiana. Many residents left for the day, and government agencies, businesses and schools were closed.
Sgt. Tim Ledet of the Louisiana State Police said protesters in buses were still bringing people to town at midday because of the gridlock, but many protesters got off and walked into town on foot.
"There is just no room to maneuver in this small town," he said.
Jena resident Terry Adams disagreed with any accusations that there might be a black-white divide in the area.
"We are not a racial town. We get along with each other, we get along fine. This is something that got out of proportion. It really has."
Jena's racial tensions were aggravated in August 2006, when three white teens hung the nooses the day after a group of black students received permission from school administrators to sit under the tree -- a place where white students normally congregated.
The guilty students were briefly suspended from classes, despite the principal's recommendation that they be expelled, according to Donald Washington, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.
Although Washington acknowledged that the FBI and other investigators thought the noose incident bore the markings of a hate crime, a decision was made not to press federal charges because the case didn't meet federal criteria. The students were under 18 and had no prior records, and no group such as a Ku Klux Klan was found to be behind their actions.
On December 4, about three months after the nooses were discovered, six teens, dubbed the Jena 6, were accused of beating classmate Justin Barker. The six -- Mychal Bell, Robert Bailey Jr., Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, Theo Shaw and Jesse Ray Beard -- were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy, according to LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters.
Bell, the only one of the six who remains in jail, was to be sentenced Thursday after convictions for aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to do the same, but both charges have been vacated, awaiting further action by the district attorney.
Charges for Bailey, Jones and Shaw also were reduced to battery and conspiracy when they were arraigned, while Purvis still awaits arraignment. The charges for Beard, who was 14 at the time of the alleged crime, are unavailable because he's a juvenile.
Tina Jones, Purvis' mother, condemned Walters.
"I hope that the D.A. will wake up and realize that he's doing the wrong thing, and to release these kids," she said. "It's not equal. The black people get the harsher extent of the law, whereas white people get a slap on the wrist per se. So it is not equal here."
Jones maintained that her son was not involved in the beating, but watched from a railing, and was not arrested that same day.
"We have a long fight ahead of us, and we'll keep fighting until justice prevails in Jena," the mother said.
Purvis, who accompanied her, was asked how he's faring.
"I'm doing pretty good. I hope there is a pretty good outcome of what's taking place today," he said. Watch an interview with one of the Jena 6 and his mom ยป
President Bush, who was asked about the rally at a news conference, said, "The events in Louisiana have saddened me. I understand the emotions. The Justice Department and the FBI are monitoring the situation down there.
"All of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice."
He advised whoever is elected next year to "reach out to the African-American community."
Hundreds of college students from historically black schools such as Howard University in Washington traveled to Jena, along with civil rights activists such as Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who helped organize the event. Martin Luther King III also attended, saying, "This is about justice for the six young men."
Sharpton called Jena the beginning of the 21st century civil rights movement.
"There's a Jena in every state," Jackson told the crowd in Jena on Thursday morning.
JoAnn Scales, who brought her three teenage children on a two-day bus journey from Los Angeles, California, to Jena, made the same point.
"The reason I brought my children is because it could have been one of them" involved in an incident like the one in Jena.
"If this can happen to them [the Jena 6] , it can happen to anyone," Scales said.
Ondra Hathaway was on the bus with Scales.
"If this young man [Bell] was railroaded to do time as an adult, how many more people has that happened to?" she said.
Jackson said on CNN's "American Morning" on Thursday that the charges against the black youths, their possible jail terms if convicted and their bail amounts are "excessive."
Punishing the teens with probation would have been sufficient, Jackson said.
Bails for the "Jena 6" were set at between $70,000 and $138,000, and all but Bell have posted bond. Bell, 17, has been in prison since his arrest. The judge has refused to lower his $90,000 bail, citing Bell's record, which includes four juvenile offenses -- two simple battery charges among them.
Bell was 16 at the time of the attack; 17 is the legal adult age in Louisiana.
Stunner's $.02
40 years after Dr. King's death, racism, injustice, and inequality are still alive and well in America. This is the same America that is fighting a war to insure democracy, while the world watches this hypocrisy.
Should the kids put the nooses on the tree? No. That was totally uncalled for. The irony is that had they called it art, they probably would have gotten a $10,000 endowment from the NEA to pay for the art. I don't think they should have done it but what was the criminal activity in doing so? Should their parents tanned their hides? Yes. Would their actions not be protected legally under freedom of speech? Again, I am certainly not condoning what they did. Way out of line but I do not see it as technically against the law.
I also plead ignorant as that I do not know all of the facts of either case. It is always dangerous arguing points from a newspaper article because rarely are they reported without bias.
Let me reiterate. I think that it is stupid and incomprehensible that someone would hang nooses from a tree. Please don't think that I condone this activity. I just want to be REALLY sure that you understand that. Maybe there was more to it that I am not seeing. Did they actually try to hang someone or did they just put the nooses on the tree? If they just put them there, I don't see how you can compare that (freedom of stupid speech) to the actually beating of someone. I might would make the kids wear a sign that says stupid so that no one would sell them rope in the future.
From what I've heard these kids really are being treated badly. I think I read somewhere that after the "beating" the kid was treated and released then attended a social function that night. This is also in an area where black people are in the extreme minority and racism really is prevalent. The guy that was convicted was done so by a jury that wasn't of his peers. I don't think any of theose on the jury wwere even black. I will be the first to call someone out for playing the racism card, but from everything I've heard these kids got screwed.
Note: I still think they shouldn't have resorted to fighting, but I think they were pushed a bit too far.
BTR Wrote:Let me reiterate. I think that it is stupid and incomprehensible that someone would hang nooses from a tree. Please don't think that I condone this activity. I just want to be REALLY sure that you understand that. Maybe there was more to it that I am not seeing. Did they actually try to hang someone or did they just put the nooses on the tree? If they just put them there, I don't see how you can compare that (freedom of stupid speech) to the actually beating of someone. I might would make the kids wear a sign that says stupid so that no one would sell them rope in the future.
Some whiteboys placed a noose on a tree at their PUBLIC school where some black kids had recently decided to start sitting for lunch. This was clearly an act of intimidation, and a hate crime, down to the letter of the law and in strict compliance with the supreme court's ruling.
Basically the prosecutor is charging the "Jena 6" with a harsher crime than what they committed. They don't deserve to be freed without paying for their actions, but then again, the white students who also started fights should be charged and the message should be made clear: violent actions against others warrant punishment.
pruitt11 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Let me reiterate. I think that it is stupid and incomprehensible that someone would hang nooses from a tree. Please don't think that I condone this activity. I just want to be REALLY sure that you understand that. Maybe there was more to it that I am not seeing. Did they actually try to hang someone or did they just put the nooses on the tree? If they just put them there, I don't see how you can compare that (freedom of stupid speech) to the actually beating of someone. I might would make the kids wear a sign that says stupid so that no one would sell them rope in the future.
Some whiteboys placed a noose on a tree at their PUBLIC school where some black kids had recently decided to start sitting for lunch. This was clearly an act of intimidation, and a hate crime, down to the letter of the law and in strict compliance with the supreme court's ruling.
I am confused. I thought (seriously) that free speech allowed even stupid, even racist expressions of free speech. Intimidation? Well, harassing opposing players at a basketball game or football game is intimidation. There were times when I felt intimidated in high school but it did not warrant criminal activity. Again, not defending what they did. It was STUPID but it seems that there is a fine line as to what is permitted and what is not permitted.
It would seem that they should be able to shut down every KKK group and white supremacist group in the country (as well as many of the black power groups) because they seem to exist to intimidate other races.
BTR Wrote:pruitt11 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Let me reiterate. I think that it is stupid and incomprehensible that someone would hang nooses from a tree. Please don't think that I condone this activity. I just want to be REALLY sure that you understand that. Maybe there was more to it that I am not seeing. Did they actually try to hang someone or did they just put the nooses on the tree? If they just put them there, I don't see how you can compare that (freedom of stupid speech) to the actually beating of someone. I might would make the kids wear a sign that says stupid so that no one would sell them rope in the future.
Some whiteboys placed a noose on a tree at their PUBLIC school where some black kids had recently decided to start sitting for lunch. This was clearly an act of intimidation, and a hate crime, down to the letter of the law and in strict compliance with the supreme court's ruling.
I am confused. I thought (seriously) that free speech allowed even stupid, even racist expressions of free speech. Intimidation? Well, harassing opposing players at a basketball game or football game is intimidation. There were times when I felt intimidated in high school but it did not warrant criminal activity. Again, not defending what they did. It was STUPID but it seems that there is a fine line as to what is permitted and what is not permitted.
It would seem that they should be able to shut down every KKK group and white supremacist group in the country (as well as many of the black power groups) because they seem to exist to intimidate other races.
You could be right. However, this is not someone saying they hate black people. The nooses are clearly threats. And they are probably trespassing to put them up, not to mention the fact they didn't have a permit for a demonstration.
And I'm sorry, but all crimes are hate crimes. Not once have I ever heard of a criminal saying, "I love you so give me your car."
BTR Wrote:Should the kids put the nooses on the tree? No. That was totally uncalled for. The irony is that had they called it art, they probably would have gotten a $10,000 endowment from the NEA to pay for the art. I don't think they should have done it but what was the criminal activity in doing so? Should their parents tanned their hides? Yes. Would their actions not be protected legally under freedom of speech? Again, I am certainly not condoning what they did. Way out of line but I do not see it as technically against the law.
I also plead ignorant as that I do not know all of the facts of either case. It is always dangerous arguing points from a newspaper article because rarely are they reported without bias.
The answer to the question in bold is "No." The Supreme Court has ruled more than once, reinforcing the rulings of multiple lower courts, that "hate speech" intended to intimidate, terrorize or manipulate an individual or a group of individuals is not protected speech, using the same rationalization as the "fire in the crowded theater" response.
Grammar-Nazi Wrote:BTR Wrote:Should the kids put the nooses on the tree? No. That was totally uncalled for. The irony is that had they called it art, they probably would have gotten a $10,000 endowment from the NEA to pay for the art. I don't think they should have done it but what was the criminal activity in doing so? Should their parents tanned their hides? Yes. Would their actions not be protected legally under freedom of speech? Again, I am certainly not condoning what they did. Way out of line but I do not see it as technically against the law.
I also plead ignorant as that I do not know all of the facts of either case. It is always dangerous arguing points from a newspaper article because rarely are they reported without bias.
The answer to the question in bold is "No." The Supreme Court has ruled more than once, reinforcing the rulings of multiple lower courts, that "hate speech" intended to intimidate, terrorize or manipulate an individual or a group of individuals is not protected speech, using the same rationalization as the "fire in the crowded theater" response.
Umm, you might want to look up the Skokie case. If there are more recent cases, please enlighten me, but this is the case that we discussed in my contemporary moral issues class a few years ago.
Also, freedom of speech doesn't extend onto school grounds, which is why the kids were suspended, and rightfully so.
The black kids should just have a simply battery charge, not attempted murder, but they should be punished for their assault, if they are indeed guilty.
I hate the term hate crime and hate crime laws. All it is is censorship, which is a violation of the constitution. A person's motivation behind a crime should have no effect on the punishment; it should all be based on the act.
Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
dfarr Wrote:Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
Who told you that you couldn't protest?
StunnerJR Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
Who told you that you couldn't protest?
How do you think it would have gone over if there were people there chanting "White Power!"?
StunnerJR Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
Who told you that you couldn't protest?
No, I just find the differences between the races pretty funny.
BlazerFan11 Wrote:StunnerJR Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
Who told you that you couldn't protest?
How do you think it would have gone over if there were people there chanting "White Power!"?
Because when white people congregate it's for a racist convention. Did you not get the white people memo?
StunnerJR Wrote:There is a serious problem down in Jena, surrounding areas, and throughout this country, no matter how you try to justify people's actions.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/car.noo...eref=yahoo
I am not justifying their actions. I think that I made it pretty clear that I did not agree with nor condone their actions. I just think that with some of the stuff that is done in the name of "art" and "free speech" in this country to narrowly rule out racist views. People are stupid and many stupid people have some backwards racist views but until this generation, that stupid backwards racist view was protected. Next it will be extended to homosexuals, then transgenders, then women, then red heads. It will only stop when it gets to white men... and of course everyone knows that they could never be intimidated.
I agree with Dfarr. I do not like hate crimes legislation. It is already against the law to kill someone. I don't care why they killed them, if it was premeditated murder, then it is murder.
If the kids had taken a cross, covered it with blood, urinated and wiped feces on it... that would be protected as free speech. If they happen to do that to a Koran, they would arrested for a hate crime and some muslim cleric would issue a fattwah to have them killed. Just seems silly to me.
I have no idea about the boys accused in the beating. If they beat someone, they should be charged with assault. If they tried to kill him or came near to killing him, attempted murder seems to fit REGARDLESS OF WHAT COLOR THEY ARE.
BlazerFan11 Wrote:StunnerJR Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Also, I want to know why all us white people weren't protesting up in Raleigh during the Duke case. This is the same thing basically.
Who told you that you couldn't protest?
How do you think it would have gone over if there were people there chanting "White Power!"?
Honestly, I would first have say that those are some racist sobs and would later realize that they have the 1st amendment right to protest.
StunnerJR Wrote:BlazerFan11 Wrote:How do you think it would have gone over if there were people there chanting "White Power!"?
Honestly, I would first have say that those are some racist sobs and would later realize that they have the 1st amendment right to protest.
It was sort of like the idiots who had the nooses hanging off of their pickum up truck. Idiots. Unfortunately even stupid people have a right to protest. You just can't be drunk while you are driving to do it :)
I agree that the 3 that hung the nooses from the tree were idiots. That action was definitely made to intimidate or piss off people, but they did not injure anybody.
Since it was on school grounds the got suspended, though I believe they shouldve gotten more if not just taken to the woodshed.
Now the 6 black youths who jumped the one white youth did. From varrying articles I've read he sustained multiple contusions, and lacerations from them beating, kicking, and stomping him....They did injure somebody.
By the letter of the law once you slap someone, grab them or push them to the ground, that is assault. Being that there were 6 kids on 1, means that by nature it was a vicious attack just for the reason that groups tend to develop the "mob mentality" and start beating & kicking harder.
Now wether or not their punishment was too severe or not severe enough in either case is up to theschool board and/or the DA usually. On one hand you have 3 kids pulling a sick, mean spirited prank. And on the other you have 6 kids beating on one. There's really no comparing the two.
But here are a few questions...
1-What did he say or do to provoke such an attack?
2-Did he provoke it?
3-Did anyone intervene?
4-what would you do if...
A- Your kid hung a noose from a tree?
B-Your kid got severely beaten by 6 other kids?
C-Your kid helped 5 others severely beat 1 kid?
BTW, I've heard different reports about the kid who got beat, I've heard he had busted ribs, a cracked skull, bruises all over, cuts & scrapes, no bruises, no broken bones, no cuts or scrapes, and not a scratch on him. But I did see a picture of him lying in a hospital bed with both eyes swollen shut so I guess that all media is open for interpretation.
Copperblazer Wrote:I agree that the 3 that hung the nooses from the tree were idiots. That action was definitely made to intimidate or piss off people, but they did not injure anybody.
Since it was on school grounds the got suspended, though I believe they shouldve gotten more if not just taken to the woodshed.
Now the 6 black youths who jumped the one white youth did. From varrying articles I've read he sustained multiple contusions, and lacerations from them beating, kicking, and stomping him....They did injure somebody.
By the letter of the law once you slap someone, grab them or push them to the ground, that is assault. Being that there were 6 kids on 1, means that by nature it was a vicious attack just for the reason that groups tend to develop the "mob mentality" and start beating & kicking harder.
Now wether or not their punishment was too severe or not severe enough in either case is up to theschool board and/or the DA usually. On one hand you have 3 kids pulling a sick, mean spirited prank. And on the other you have 6 kids beating on one. There's really no comparing the two.
But here are a few questions...
1-What did he say or do to provoke such an attack?
2-Did he provoke it?
3-Did anyone intervene?
4-what would you do if...
A- Your kid hung a noose from a tree?
B-Your kid got severely beaten by 6 other kids?
C-Your kid helped 5 others severely beat 1 kid?
BTW, I've heard different reports about the kid who got beat, I've heard he had busted ribs, a cracked skull, bruises all over, cuts & scrapes, no bruises, no broken bones, no cuts or scrapes, and not a scratch on him. But I did see a picture of him lying in a hospital bed with both eyes swollen shut so I guess that all media is open for interpretation.
I've heard various reports about the "victim" and his injuries, but one thing that has not been disputed is that he did attend a party the same day after leaving the hospital.
Copperblazer Wrote:4-what would you do if...
A- Your kid hung a noose from a tree?
B-Your kid got severely beaten by 6 other kids?
C-Your kid helped 5 others severely beat 1 kid?
Hard to say because I can't imagine my child doing any of those things. First thing that comes to mind other than some type of punishment is to pray.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:And I'm sorry, but all crimes are hate crimes. Not once have I ever heard of a criminal saying, "I love you so give me your car."
That cliche has never passed the smell test IMO.
If you're being car jacked, I doubt you are being singled out because of your race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. You're probably being singled out because of your car.
Clearly, there is a difference amongst crimes, and that is why our society doesn't execute car thieves, nor does it send embezzlers to the firing squads. Hate crime laws emphasize the context in which the illegal act was committed, and considers the effect upon other similar victims in the community.
Maybe it's just a bad term.
BlazerUnit Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:And I'm sorry, but all crimes are hate crimes. Not once have I ever heard of a criminal saying, "I love you so give me your car."
That cliche has never passed the smell test IMO.
If you're being car jacked, I doubt you are being singled out because of your race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. You're probably being singled out because of your car.
Clearly, there is a difference amongst crimes, and that is why our society doesn't execute car thieves, nor does it send embezzlers to the firing squads. Hate crime laws emphasize the context in which the illegal act was committed, and considers the effect upon other similar victims in the community.
I understand the concept behind the term, but I disagree with the spirit of it. Commiting a crime is commiting a crime. Whether the person doing it didn't like the color of the victim's skin or just flat out didn't like the person period should have no bearing on what the person is accused of. As TM stated, it's a bad term.