There is a strange situation in Louisiana in which absurdly mis-labled ‘civil rights’ protests have been occurring. This has happened because six black students were arrested for seriously assaulting a white student in the aftermath of some nooses being hung suggestively from a tree in order to intimidate black students.
Now correct me if I am wrong but whilst hanging nooses from a tree is a very offensive reference to lynching, unless the owner of the tree objects or someone’s neck is in one of the nooses, dangling some rope from a tree is an act of constitutionally protected freedom of expression, is it not? It may be offensive (like, for example, a rap song extolling the murder of policemen) but it is not actually illegal. Beating a seventeen year old unconscious on the other hand is not constitutionally protected freedom of expression, it is at the very least assault and was initially being treated as attempted murder.
So…
It seems that the ‘civil rights’ protesters feel that if members of the local black community have their sensibilities (quite rightly) upset by the admittedly vile way some teenagers have expressed themselves (namely hanging nooses from a tree), then they should be given the right to assault people they are offended by without charge or indeed any restraint of law.
Presumably these same protesters would also argue that the editors of Jyllands-Posten should be the legitimate targets for violence by any Muslim offended by their provocative use of their right to freedom of expression. Certainly that is what many Muslims were saying about the publishers of the ‘Mohammed cartoons’. The protesters in Louisiana logically must agree with that notion as from what I have read they are not arguing just for broad social opprobrium for the noose-hangers (that is already the case), they are calling for legal sanction against them (just as there were demands for the editors of Jyllands-Posten to be ‘punished’) and some are contributing to the defence costs of the people who beat up the white boy, which presumably means they do not want the black youths who did it punished because being offended makes violence by six (black) teenagers against one (white) teenager perfectly okay.
Is that indeed a fair assessment of what the ‘protesters’ think should be the case, or am I missing something here?
My thoughts exactly. If those black boys are responsible for beating the crap out of someone they should be charged. What the white kids are accused of is wrong but not actually an offense per se.
There is something deeply patronising about some of the defences of the black kids being charged.
Its the same as the Duke rape (non-rape) case. There, I think it was 4 white student athletes charged with raping a black female prostitute. Her story started to fall apart rather quickly but it didn’t matter to many in the black community, black leaders like Jesse Jackson and even the liberal PC white faculty at Duke. Because of this womans’ word these young white men were kicked of the lacrosse team, had their reputations destroyed and were facing huge defense bills and a good part of their lives behind bars.
They were later exonerated through a mountain of evidence, indisputable. The girl lied. But the blacks shouting the loudest for their heads never apologized, neither did Duke’s faculty and many in our liberal media who so wanted their guilt.
It is a huge double standard and injustice and it is happening quite often, these are simply the more sensational incidents. Political correctness and victimization have been a significant reason many in the US have less faith in our justice system.
Now correct me if I am wrong but whilst hanging nooses from a tree is a very offensive reference to lynching, unless the owner of the tree objects or someone’s neck is in one of the nooses, dangling some rope from a tree is an act of constitutionally protected freedom of expression, is it not?
You’re wrong. Freedom of speech does not extend to threatening another person with serious bodily harm. You don’t get to burn crosses on a black man’s lawn, not for the trivial reason that it’s trespassing, but because it threatens bodily harm, even death. Free speech does not protect that.
The kids who hung the nooses should go to jail. So should the Jena 6.
Well from what I read, this beating incident took place 3 months after the nooses hanging from the tree and the white kid in question had nothing to do it. It seems that we was just targeted due to the color of his skins. Its a sad day when uninformed and uneducated people take the side of 6 thugs over 1 white victim, due to the fact that they have black skin.
The Long Beach case was another example when 11 black thugs attacked 3 white girls for being white. All they got was probation, no marches for these girls who did not get justice by the way. Al & Jesse are nothing but corrupt attention whores, who have brought shame to the civil rights movement. MLK must be turning in his grave.
I’m not sure what to think of it yet.
Classical Values has the most thoughtful analysis of the incidents that I’ve read yet.
One point I think is relevant is that in the context of this particular community, there is not a substantive difference between threatening to use a loaded gun or a noose. While the time lag suggests that this (Jena 6) attack had nothing to do with the noose incident, it should be kept in mind that the noose incident was not a mere Halloween prank. I believe it was reasonable for those it was aimed at to interpret it as a statement of intent to commit a lynching.
That is true but that is not quite what happened here. Just as the LAPD cannot arrest a rap singer for praising gunning down cops because it is not actually a direct threat, it is an expression of hatred, which is not the same thing. The hatred expressed by dangling those nooses is clear but unless it was a specific credible threat to actually lynch someone, it does not become a crime (and that is certainly what the local Plod concluded too).
Well that is where you are wrong. It is the combination of the burning cross and the fact it is clearly targeted at a person (either because it is on their property or otherwise directly associated with someone, such as across the street from them) that makes it a crime.
The law is quite clear (and quite correct) in the USA that KKK nutjobs can burn crosses by the pick-up truck load just as long as they find some private place to do it. Expressing hatred is not a crime. However some rap singer jabbering about killing Officer Paul Smith, badge number 124328, of the LAPD, would be on very shaky legal ground too, whereas singing about “Offing Pigs” is rather too abstract and intangible. Similarly if someone name was on a noose or it was in front of their house, that might be a different proposition.
Alas America, you have had this problem ingrained ever since the Civil War.
Had Lincoln not been killed it may have worked out differently…. But this stuff never seems to get resolved.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14104&R=115082C92
Similar sort of double standards I’d say.
Quite correct.
Hanging the nooses earned the culprits in-school detention. That punishment is rather too light, if you ask me, but the school is definitely the relevant authority. This is speech that would, in Tinker terms, be considered “disruptive,” and so the school has the right/authority to proscribe it. In general, however, simply expressing hateful opinions is not at all illegal and is in fact protected by the law. The local DA was correct when he said that he could find no law under which to charge the noose-hangers.
By the way, I’m also in complete agreement with the thesis of this post: that the issues here are largely the same as in the Jyllands-Posten incident. Being offended is not a license to engage in random violence against anyone, and most especially if your victim is in no way connected to the individuals who offended you.
I despise “hate crime” laws – but it is telling that the Jena 6 are not being charged with them. It means that the law in America is indeed applied differently to members of different racial groups – it just happens to be the other way ’round from what human excrement like Sharpton and Jackson are claiming. See Nifong, Mike for another recent example.
The law is quite clear (and quite correct) in the USA that KKK nutjobs can burn crosses by the pick-up truck load just as long as they find some private place to do it.
True, but when it’s some secluded property, it’s not a threat against anyone in particular. If you live next door to a black family and set up a large burning cross at your property line, you’ve committed a crime even though you’re on your own property.
Hanging nooses in an area prominently travelled by blacks, in response to a black kid sitting under the “wrong” tree, is a threat. If it’s not a threat of lynching, per se, it’s a threat to do blacks harm. That’s more than hate speech, that’s a crime.
unless it was a specific credible threat to actually lynch someone, it does not become a crime (and that is certainly what the local Plod concluided too).
Thank heavens we can rely on police in the South to be impartial in racially charged situations. LOL
I said as much in my comment that you are presumably replying to.
Wearily pointing once again that only a US government entity can do anything that constitutes infringing “freedom of speech,” and then reallly only against a media outlet.
“Freedom of speech” has not one thing to do with what John Q Public hangs from a tree, or pounds into someone else’s face. The first is stupid but not illegal. The second is felony assault, end of story.
You can’t send someone to jail just because their actions are disgusting. Were that true, we’d rapidly run out of jail space. Which is why any attempt to legislate “hate crime” is utterly ridiculous.
I was actually sitting back wondering how long it would take you to say something prejudiced about Southerners.
After having been charged and convicted of threatening who, exactly?
I was actually sitting back wondering how long it would take you to say something prejudiced about Southerners.
More specifically, about Southern police. Their record on race-motivated crimes is rather shabby. de Havilland speculated as to their conclusions, then cited them as an authority. I mocked that authority.
After having been charged and convicted of threatening who, exactly?
The black kids who sat under the “white” tree, at the very least. Perhaps every black kid in the school.
I did not quote them as “authority”, just noted that the people on the spot have said what it screamingly obvious ever when viewed from London… the ‘noose hangers’ did not actually break any laws. They may deserve to be buried under a steaming pile of social opprobrium but there is no place for the law to get involved.
Even if it went to trial I suspect most juries are rather more common-sensical than your take on this. That hardly constitutes a credible threat. In effect you seem to be sharing the “group offence” position of the demonstrators that a bunch of teenagers going “nah nah lynchings!” really is the equivalent of a manifested action (beating up a adolescent) rather than an expression of ‘generic’ hatred which is quite rightly not proscribed by the state.
Felonious assault? Against whom exactly and under the aegis of what statute? It could be a viable case up north, but somehow I doubt Missipp incorporated all the ‘hate-crime’ foolishness of the 90s, so what we have is an ambiguous and non-specific assault claim in all likelihood. I dont see any corpus delicti and no standing for a criminal prosecution.
The town is 80% white. Even if the local prosecutor takes it to trial, good luck getting a jury to convict. If it goes federal (which it wont), I am sure they can drum up some criminal statute on violent hate speach near a school or some crap. Doubt W would allow that to happen in his present weakened state.
More interesting is how the old hippies react and whether Trent Lott sees a George Wallace redemption possibility. I think Hilliary would have gone down South, but the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton beat her to it. Obama is rightfully afraid of what these two marginal Rev.s will say so he is staying away. Dodd doesnt know where the South is. Richardson might go down. He doesnt have anything to lose. The Rev.s and southern Blacks arent too keen on the Hispanics so they’ll hush, but it would play great on the coasts.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Apparently my comments don’t get through anymore, but here goes.
In effect you seem to be sharing the “group offence” position of the demonstrators that a bunch of teenagers going “nah nah lynchings!” really is the equivalent of a manifested action (beating up a adolescent) rather than an expression of ‘generic’ hatred which is quite rightly not proscribed by the state.
I never said or implied they were equivalent you goof, I said they both merited jail. Beating someone up is worse than threatening them, but both threatening and carrying out an attack deserve prison time. In the South, or anywhere else in America, when white kids hang a noose where black kids sat or sit, that’s a threat of harm. You see, white people used to lynch black people, especially and most recently in the South. Louisiana is part of the South.
You may reflexively dislike civil rights protestors, but they’re right that white crime is not being treated like black crime. You seem to think this is youthful exuberance, or “boys being boys”. It’s not.
Broadly that’s fair; except that I don’t take the fact that a US DA was initially treating it as attempted murder as proof that it truly was attempted murder-serious. Really the whole thing is a mess. There was a case, same community, in between the nooses and the beating, where a white kid drew a shotgun on a group of black kids. Black kids grabbed the shotgun and ran – and got charged with theft. So some sensitivity to a racial double standard is understandable.
I do hold the six assailants responsible for their actions. The protestors and some bloggers seem to want the six assailants let off on misdemeanor assault (if that), when felony assault seems justified to me (six on one, beating him to the ground). Attempted murder, tried as an adult, for only one of the assailants, does seem overboard. OTOH, the one tried as an adult had a prior record as a minor, except it had been sealed before this ever happened, so no commentators knew about it until recently. And the white assault victim had supposedly been part of a group taunting a black kid about being beaten up, which doesn’t justify assault but might qualify as “fighting words,” if that jurisdiction recognizes that defense.
There’s even more convolutions I don’t remember off the top of my head… Not sure what my point is by now except that sometimes one side being wrong doesn’t make the other side completely right.
You said they both merit jail, so yes, you did. My whole argument is that for provocations to reach the level of crime, it needs to be an expression of a credible threat of real action (i.e. not just a provocation). The thing about being provocative (i.e. dangling a noose from a tree) is that sometimes people get provoked. But that is not the same as actually making a credible threat to hang people and unless you know of any recent history of lynchings in Jena in the last 10 years or so, your contention that this is a clear and present threat of real hangings is frankly hysterical nonsense.
Islamic nubjobs march in London holding signs calling for the beheading of anyone who upsets them… but in the end it is just sound and fury (for the most part). Sure people were lynched in the USA. Sure, Theo Van Gogh was murdered in the Netherlands by an Islamic nutjob because he upset them. Yet to arrest people for the thought crime of being provocative is crazy because unless there is a degree of focus, it is not a real threat, it is just sounding off. It ain’t pretty and it should not be socially acceptable, but it should also not be illegal.
You should spend some time in Ulster and see what it is like during the marching season to understand the difference between actual threats of real violence and expressions of communal hatred. The American South are babes in the woods when it comes to long standing intercommunal hatreds and the expression thereof.
I am a civil rights protester.
That would be because being provocative by dangling a noose like this is not a crime whereas beating the crap out of someone is, so yes, it was treated differently. I am fine with that.
Nor do I, but I do take it as proof it was not a childish exchange of schoolyard blows. Clearly they beat the crap out of that guy and that does not deserve a free pass because their community got insulted.
Here’s my read:
I’m not sure what Louisiana requires to support an attempted murder charge. If anything like here, it would require that the six assailants intended to cause the victim’s death or at least knew that death was a likely outcome of their attack.
However, felony assault seems reasonable based upon certain factors:
1) They HAD to know that their actions would likely cause serious bodily injury, AND
2) Serious bodily injury actually did result from their attack. (In Colorado, that’s actually the legal standard for felony assault: knowingly or recklessly causing serious bodily injury, with SBI having a specific legal definition. )
As for the jackasses who hung the nooses: I can’t find any law on the books in my own state by which that can be charged. Disorderly Conduct as defined at 18-9-106(1)(a) almost fits: It’s defined as ” intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly (…) [making] a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
However, the assault followed the nooses by, what, three months? That’s not an immediate breach of the peace. That’s six shitheads attacking someone and then digging for justification.
I can’t find a defense that really applies to the assault either. We don’t have a “fighting words” defense to speak of.
Note: none of this speaks directly to Louisiana law. I’m guessing (and that’s only a guess) that they’re not TOO far removed from what we have.
ETA: CRS 18-9-121(2)(a), “Bias-Motivated Crime.”
It’s a little thin, the claim that hanging the nooses was likely to produce bodily inury or property damage. Thin enough that I don’t think it would fly.
My own view is that the only actual criminal acts were the assaults, but that the kids who hung the nooses…if they were my kids I would put the wood to their hides.
First, it’s not “the South”, it’s a particular part of the South that never entered the 20th century. It’s a place where de-acto segregation is still practiced. It’s neither typical of the South, nor the US as a whole.
Second, to threaten to sentence someone to 22 years in jail for what should earn maybe 22 months (I’d give 2 years, because he’s a thug, not just a school bully) shows just how broken the system is. The charge would be “actual bodily harm”, ABH not GBH in the UK. That’s up to 5 years max, 7 if racially motivated, which this was.
The fact that the legal system is broken does not mean that these bastards should be let off scot-free. They should get a severe punishment, not just a suspension from school. A few months in jail would be appropriate.
That they will likely get many years because of racism is a wrong that we cannot allow to go past.
The horrible paradox is, that while a noose in that context is deemed a reference to lynching, i.e. pseudo-justice dispensed by mob violence, the subsequnt assault actually was a lynching, albeit by chance not resulting in death.
Of course lynch-law is a democratic system of justice that pays more attention to the feelings of victims than the rights of suspects, and is thus implicitly endorsed by many modern politicians and pundits.
The perpetrators of the actual lynching in this case are in some circles being treated as categorical victims, which is even more in the spirit of the age. They may not personally have been threatened, but because they are black and black people in general are deemed to have been threatened, and to be common inheritors of past sufferings, then any blame is widely held to be mitigated by their colour. An inversion of the lynch-law of the Old South, where an ‘uppity Negro’ risked violence in ‘defence’ of the ‘white’ social order and segregation; here for “uppity” read “racist”. It is not important whether the taboo act was by our individualist lights legitimate or not. The mechanism at play is the same.
I am undecided on the noose aspect, but the beatings? No. It was totally unjustified.
BTW, cartoons ridiculing Islam, apart from, IMHO, being almost unavoidable given the amount of sheer moonbattery that Islam is, is in no way inciting violence towards Muslims, so to me is not even close to being equivalent.
But to the Muslims it is and, as such, equates to the ‘grounds for justification’ that these people seek as a reason/defence for their violence.
I agree with the sentiment with the original article; that said, I hope the fuckers who put up nooses to intimidate black people die a very long, painful death.
Their record on race-motivated crimes was also earned well over 40 years ago. In the past generation, things have changed quite a bit in the South. Most of the more recent credible instances of racism on the part of the police come from cities that can in no way be construed as “Southern.” So your stereotype is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate and dated. It is unconvincing as an argument – but it is rather revealing about the biases that color your perception of this case.
That is an utterly ridiculous statement. And quite indicative of the cultural disconnect.
A more accurate comparison than the Motoons would be found in a socially isolated Muslim enclave in France or the Netherlands. If a ‘youth’ pantomimed with a knife slashing the throat of a non-believer, would that be a credible threat?
If the answer is ‘yes’ then the nooses, clearly aimed at any blacks who might dare to sit under the ‘white’ tree, are a credible threat.
If the knife slashing pantomime (remember, not at protests in London, but in an isolated Muslim enclave where witnesses to crime don’t exist) aimed at non-Muslims is nothing more than a disgusting exercise of free speech, then the same can be said of the nooses.
Speaking for myself, in either of those situations I would seriously alter my activities, route selection, times of day or night to be out, etc. to avoid what I would consider a real threat. But the marchers in London? I would wave my own placard back at them if I could be troubled to ever attend a march. (While of course realizing that if those ‘death to cartoonists’ marchers thought they would get away with their threatened actions, they would try.)
Like, are there special umba-gumba symbols that have some sort of special powers to make us do things? Like, that silver cross on vampires stuff?
I’m not in favor of the already stupidity saturated government getting into the official, or illegal symbol business. It would be nice if they just could clean storm drains and fill road holes. I suppose I am hoping for too much.
Maybe I should just go with the flow of this( not samizdata ) idiots on parade theme and suggest the tree be charged and brought to trial.
Nothing ridiculous, Stacy. Do you think that putting nooses up to intimidate people, given the associations, is something akin to juvenile graffiti? The sort of people who put up nooses to make some sort of point are the sort of racist scum who sadly, still exist: I wish them ill, although of course it should not be illegal to be a racist. I just avoid associating with such people and hope they either grow up as human beings or, like I said, suffer an unpleasant fate. Your point about cultural disconnect: what the heck does that mean?
Everyone is going to get hurt with this case. Blacks fear racism and lynching, then go pound on innocent bystanders. The ACLU gets a new cause to whine about, the victim is ignored or demonized, and nothing is actually solved.
Perry’s initial point about offensive actions or speech not rising to the level of a crime nor justifying a violent response is correct. The story here for me is about disproportionality, by the DA and by the school administration. I don’t see how the attack by the Jena 6 rises anywhere near the standards of the initial attempted murder charge. Meanwhile, the idiots who hung the nooses got a slap on the wrists. For the highly risk-averse, zero tolerance US school culture that can have a student who has a swiss army knife in his car charged with a clutch of felonies, the noose hangers got off very lightly.
The two acts are not equivalent in seriousness but the “system” overreacted to the crimes of the young black men and (massively) under-reacted to the infractions of the white men.
No one has mentioned how incredibly patronising some people are to the blacks in this case. They were riled by they noose and could not help themselves from beating the crap out of some white kid.
If this had happened right after the noose incident it might have some logic, however daft, but 3 months later?
I agree with the Toonifada analogy.
A good portion of your analysis is correct, but as always, the devil’s in the details. Here are two overlooked ones:
A)The prosecutor sought a simple assault conviction in a case of a similar white on black attack during the period of time between the noose incident and the Jena 6 incident.
B)The student who was jumped was out of the hospital by evening-time and was healthy enough to attend a party that evening. One would think that if six toughs intended to kill, they would do a good enough job to leave their victim hospitalized for days, not hours.
While of course the Jena six should be convicted and imprisoned, I feel that the black community has a legitimate grievance against the prosecutor for handling the cases inequitably.
What you’re missing in this story is the money angle. BOTH Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton no longre speak for black people. Obama is changing the dialogue.
Obama reflects more of the black community in language, aspiration and ability. He is also very attractive to white liberal voters. Conservatives are rejecting him because he is shallow and a re-hash of collectivist policies in a nicer package…
With Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in positions of high power, America has grown accustomed to the idea that merit trumps skin color.
Jackson has always been about Je$$e… It’s never been about changes or equality. He is a very wealthy person and controls many tax exempt vehicles that peddle tax exemptions. Sharpton has evolved over the years and seeks more of both wealth and power. Unfortunately he lacks ability.
Jena is an artifact from another time… History is passing… DUke and the UCLA-UCDavis-Columbia tales show that the world is changing… The old will soon retire and be replaced by a new generation with very different views of social injustice and the role of education, civil disobedience, wars and military… Some large numbers of the rising generation say the old cannot leave fast enough… I agree.
There is more to this story than one or two incidents. There were a series of incidents. What the point is for the black community (and although I am not black I have lived in the black community much of my life) is that the original white kids were supposed to be expelled but then that was lightened up and they were just suspended for three days. And consequently when it was black youth in the wrong they got the worst punishment, but white kids got the least punishment. And this happened over and over. The real culprit is the district attorney who was simply interested in fanning the flames. The kid who was beaten by the six went to a party later that night. So how bad was it? Certainly there should be assault charges. But by calling it attempted murder that was a direct challenge to the black community. No wonder black folk read in their papers what happened and they get pissed off but your readers get a tiny bit of the story and start talking about the black “boys” (very first comment). If you don’t understand the historical background of all this then you know crap about being black in america. Even Clarence Thomas talked about being in a “lynching”. And in the south we all know about the “strange fruit” (don’t know that one? check out Billie Holiday some time). Sad when we relatively innocent white folks don’t understand that some of us are full of hatred and would like nothing better than race war (and yes, there are plenty of black folk in that camp too; they are wrong also).
Indeed, never was a truer word said.
I am not sure about the MoToons / Jena 6 analogy because the nooses were a (none-specific) threatening act whereas the MoToons were an act of (specific) mocking.
There is a huge difference between a threat and an insult.
Other points:
Any assault by six people on one that puts the victim on the ground is de facto a serious one.
Some commentators have dissapointed me by using the “C word” – “community”. Let’s just keep it at the level of individuals… The “black community” or the “gay community” or whatever are constructs of idiots on the left.
Oh, I dunno. I would say that wishing a horrible death on people just for intimidating is enough of a disconnect between crime and “punishment” to qualify as “ridiculous,” yeah. I agree the culprits were punished too lightly (three days suspension hardly seems enough in for a display of hatred that has been haunting the community for almost a year) – but “a horrible death?” Sounds like PC-motivated hyperbole to me. They’re high school kids. Flirting with this kind of crap is not so unusual.
To which I would like to second what Nick M said. The people charged have a legitimate grievance. I’m not sure what the “black community” is aside from a career vehicle for Jesse Jackson.
The six people charged with whatever have a legitimate grievance? What, pray tell, is their grievance against the guy they (allegedly) attacked?
None whatever. Their grievance is against the authorities who threw the book at them. Their crime was serious and should be taken seriously – complete with prison time if convicted. But the 22 years for attempted murder they were originally facing is off the charts. We all have a stake in making sure the authorities administer the law in an even manner.
The connection between the noose incident and the beating is just more MSM lies:
“Out of the 40-plus statements, including those from the black students and some of the students charged in the fight, none suggested that the Dec. 4 incident was imminently caused by the nooses”
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310322
The nooses incident has been taken by the black lobby to leverage their case against the DA. The white-guilt MSM just love swallowing this stuff up, however misinformed.
Which makes it even more paradoxical. Verging on mad. Lobbyists justified the actions of the gang by claiming for them the status of a lynch-mob, in an effort to show up the DA as overreacting? In the lost world of unversalist jurisprudence that would make them seem more blameworthy (full of intent, and seizing the law’s prerogative) than if involved in some random scrap.
In fact, I’ve seen pretty credible accounts that say that the nooses had nothing to do with race, and were a typical football prank since the school was playing a rival high school who had the Cowboys as their team name. As in, Hang ’em high.
In fact, I’ve seen an (as yet undisputed) AP story that quoted a black teacher as saying that the nooses where cut down as a disturbance because white and black kids kept playing with them, putting their heads through them and swinging from them.
The stomping of the six had nothing to do with racism or nooses hung three months earlier, and everything to do with not being let in to a party four days earlier.
They’re not against lynching, so long as they’re the ones doing it.
Quote:
“In fact, I’ve seen an (as yet undisputed) AP story that quoted a black teacher as saying that the nooses where cut down as a disturbance because white and black kids kept playing with them, putting their heads through them and swinging from them.”
First of all, I’d question any quote by any news media (they are simply unreliable, whether the story is about a local widget factory or a very prominent, historically well-researched academic or scientific subject. Put bluntly, they are lazy and ignorant, and you accept any quotations or data presented as fact at your own risk. When “anonymous” sources are thrown in, your radar should scream more loudly.)
Secondly, the fact that school children will/might/possibly could swing in a noose should neither be taken as here or there. School children (god love them) are stupid, energetic, and stupid. They have no philosophy to offer us. We, as a society, culture, and world, would do well to remember that.
Quote:
The stomping of the six had nothing to do with racism or nooses hung three months earlier, and everything to do with not being let in to a party four days earlier.
–Hmm, interesting proposition. Is this a quote? paraphase? Narrative opinion? Regardless, time-lines are rather fluid during adolescence/early adulthood. I’ve known grudges regarding boyfriend/girlfriend stealing, secret-betraying, and the like, gossiped into a frenzy over time — certainly three months is not oustide the realm of “keeping an issue alive” for the younger set (and I don’t imagine there was much else of substance to talk about in Jena). So to think that “three months” equates to the issue being dead for the individuals involved demonstrates a “mature-remove” by the commentors.
That said, I come to the conclusion (from the very little I know, but, hey, why let that stop me) that the prosecutor is an ass, that the perpetrator was a thug, and that the community of Jena has major problems, including some that reflect social/criminal/cultural issues still in existence in many parts of America (although in many instances they are safely buried underground — much to our human detriment).
I apologize if what I am about to write has already been written above (I have not read the fifty or so comments).
It is accepted that the boy who was knocked to the ground and repeatedly kicked, whilst on the ground, by six other boys, was not involved in hanging the nooses on the tree. The boys who hung the bits of rope up were suspended from school (and, therefore, were not there to be attacked).
This boy was attacked for two reasons:
He was on his own (and therefore an easy target). And he had the “wrong” colour skin.
Why is this not racialism?
As for charges:
Five of the boys basically got off.
One boy was charged with attempted murder (the six boys were trying to kill the boy they were using as a soccer ball) this was bargained down to battery. And now it has been ruled that (as he was only 17) the boy should not have been charged as a adult.
So game, set and match to Mr Jackson (father and son – the son being high up in the junior Senator for Illinois campaign to be President) and the rest of the “activists”.
That AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena
They don’t mention the black teachers name for the playing with the nooses statement. Yet, late they do name and directly quote one of the black teachers at the school.
There are more nuanced reporting of this in the US if you dig a little, e.g.:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/284511.html
Maybe some in the US press are learning from the Duke University case. The British press certainly are not, whitey in southern America is racist can be the only view you can come to by viewing the bbc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtEqQHS31Ts
Paul, they were suspended for three days. This attack occurred six months later.
Also, Phelps etc, there is a problem with quoting a black teacher in this circumstance. It is a white school district. The problem is job security. Of course, he could appeal to the school board …
This is from an email responding to a request from Glenn Reynolds asking Radley Balko to comment.
I find it unfortunately suggestive that local law enforcement hasn’t found out who “burned down the school’s administration building.”
I also find the stance being taken by much of the MSM to be a little unusual compared to their usual line unless taken in light of the Democratic primary race.
Suggestive how? Arsonists are notoriously difficult to identify (for obvious reasons). More to the point, I could read this either way: racist white cops covering up for a white crime, PC cops not wishing to inflame tensions further by arresting black kids for a difficult-to-prove crime. So I’m afraid I’m just not sure what you mean here.
Ditto this:
I don’t see how the MSM’s line on this is any different from usual – but I’m not following this all that closely, so it’s likely I’m missing something. Seems to me that we’re hearing the normal round of “two justice systems” plus “community” plus a dash of strongly implied “the South’s racist past” tempered with “of course beating is wrong and the 6 should be punished” peppered with all kinds of hyperbolic anti-racist statements designed to assure the race-baiters that the reporter in question is a team player before he suggests that hanging nooses might just maybe not be as serious a matter as actually ganging up on and beating an innocent. Space normal speed if you ask me.
So – please clarify.
Really, Joshua! In light of the track record of law enforcement in this particular community, I have a hard time taking your remark seriously. Every single cited case so far has been skewed heavily towards letting off white ‘kids’ and seeking sometimes spectacularly inappropriately harsh convictions against black ‘kids’ … 15 YEARS for attacking somebody with a shoe who subsequently went to a party the same day!?
This time, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that your suggestion is less than preposterous. There is certainly enough evidence that it is.
As for the political angle, that is a little more obscure. It helps to realize that Jesse and Al are to ‘the civil rights movement’ what Move On is to serious Democrats, namely, loose cannons who are screwing things up for their supposed beneficiaries. People who seriously support Obama strongly want to avoid a debate along color lines because they know that he can not possibly win that no matter what he says or does. Sharpton and Jackson don’t care because to them, Obama is competition, not a like minded ally. Yes, I am that cynical about Jackson and Sharpton.
Obama is a true leftist (well left of Hillary if you care about degrees of leftism) that has a real shot at the Whitehouse this time and presumably many more opportunities in the future. Of course the left don’t want to seem him beat up for no possible gain. Once you realize that there are two ‘black’ sides to this, the dichotomy becomes quite obvious. It is the legacy civil rights leadership against the mainstream politically ambitious left. Usually they are indistinguishable, but this is one of the exceptions. Obama is in the mainstream left and will only get burned by this.
Also, remember we are not talking (at least I am not) about “the South”. We are talking about one particular community and local government with a rather clear recent history.
If the chronology of events I’ve read is correct then I think it’s plausible that the hanging of the nooses was a direct threat of violence against a specific person. The nooses were hung in response to a question asked by a black student during a student assembly the previous day. It may have been quite clear, to everyone involved, toward whom the “message” was directed and, if it was, that would not be protected speach.
I also think there is a civil rights issue here, but it’s not the charging or convicting of the black men who beat up the white man. That seems appropriate, to me. It’s that white men were committing crimes against black men and not getting charged. In that sense, it’s the reverse of the Duke non-rape case: prosecutorial authority was abused by not charging people who should have been charged. It’s seems clear that during these events the judicial process wasn’t blind to race, and that makes it a civil rights issue.
First of all, I think my earlier comment should have made clear that I thought the original sentences in this case were “off the charts.” That’s why I called them “off the charts.”
Second of all, all cases cited so far are things I’ve heard from the MSM. It seems totally plausible to me, to take the most widely-cited example, that a white kid could pull a shotgun in self-defense, the local authorities could respond appropriately, and the media could (with a little help from Al Sharpton) misread the whole incident as “evidence” of racism on the part of the local cops. I realize that there are plenty of good reporters working for the AP – but there are equally many who hear “shotgun” and assume that the wielder was the badguy. Especially if he’s white, male and southern. Neither you nor I know enough about the backstory to conclude with the kind of certainty you’re showing here that the local law enforcement is racist.
My suggestion is no more preposterous than yours. Do you honestly think there is a law enforcement officer anywhere in the country who lets known arsonists off just because they’re white? But let’s hear it clearly this time, just for the record. Here’s what you wrote:
Suggestive of what, exactly? Tell us what conclusion you are coming to, and how you arrived at it.
I forgot to note that in my September 24, 2007 04:09 PM comment, the underlining is mine. Oops.
I think that all of you are failing to realize that white boys indeed beat up a black boy, but I guess you just feel better off ignoring the facts. IGNORANT! Now i’m not sure that I recall anywhere in the constitution where it says that to threaten someone is a “figure of speech”???? hum??? Hanging nooses on a historically “white only” tree is a death threat, they mide as well said ‘Niggers sit under my tree again and I will hang you like I did your ancestors.’ THREAT. No one wants to acknowledge that though. Once again you’re hiding behind something to express yourself, whether it’s your computer at home, or a call in to the radio, or back then sheets…get real with yourselves!
FREE JENA 6
To which I would say “so what?”. How is that ‘fact’ relevant? The ‘Jena 6’ were arrested for beating up some (white) boy. Do you agree that is correct? If not, why is it not correct?
If you agree that they were indeed arrested for beating up a boy (and that fact does not really seem to be in dispute by anyone as far as I can see), then whoever else did whatever else to anyone else is completely irrelevant. It simply has nothing to do with the incident for which they were charged.
If you want someone else arrested for beating up someone else, then say so. I have no problem with EVERYONE who beats up ANYONE getting arrested. But why should the ‘Jena 6’ get to beat someone up and get away with it?