Bryant Purvis, despite being a fine member of society, is beset with problems. Seeking to put issues in Louisiana behind him, he has relocated to Texas, but discovers that authorities there also disdain assault on another student.
What exactly is your point? That these guys are bad news? That it’s dangerous to make a martyr out of a living person? That this recent (alleged) attack is a result of a failure to incarcerate these guys?
No one ever said these guys were perfect, or innocent. They got a bum rap in the Jena 6 situation.
The fact that some of them may be asshats, admiral class, does not mean they were not mistreated before…
…so what is your point?
The OP is just waiting for them to apply to be firefighters…
Unless you are contending that he should have been charged with attempted murder in the Texas case instead of misdemeanor assault, you have missed the entire point of the Jena controversy.
You’re suggesting that dunceswithcats might have missed the entire point of a controversy over racial equality? Next you’ll be saying that the sun rises in the east, and that my donut binges are somehow responsible for my increasing girth.
I sometimes think that the first thing the moron does when he gets up every morning is fire up Google and plug in:
black AND crime OR defendant OR charged
It really is a tired schtick, made even more pathetic because he generally fails to offer any actual argument or analysis in his OP, and then, when he later attempts to expand on his initial post, generally demonstrates a complete inability to make a coherent point and gets his ass handed to him on a plate.
The Jena thing was… more than a little inflated by media hype preceding careful analysis.
That said, I think Bell needed to be scared - and I’d be surprised if he becomes a contributor to society in the next two decades.
That said… the problem with the Jena thing was a rush to judgment that there was inequity. The problem with this one is that there is just as much of a rush to judgment. Let the facts be known, all of the facts and not just the ones that sell papers, and then let’s make a decision as to the merits of the case.
I can see a kid getting a bum rap in Louisiana being given a hard time in another place. I can also see a troubled kid finding trouble where ever he goes… or possibilities in the middle. Let’s let the facts be known before any rush to judgment - on EITHER side.
I hate to build someone else’s argument for him, and I invite the OP to correct or expand upon what I am about to offer, but I imagine his argument is:
-
After the “Jena 6” were accused of attempted murder, many people rallied to their defense, claiming they were innocent victims of a racist frame-up made possible by the insular Jena community.
-
Subsequent to that event, one of the accused relocated to Texas, and has again been charged with a serious crime, which suggests that the earlier Jena charges were also more meritorious than first reported.
My own commentary would be: I thought the “$100 bills in the mouth” picture and the refusal of the families of the accused to account for their spending of the money they received ostensibly for legal expenses was pretty crappy, but other than that, I see no big deal here. If anyone ever claimed the “Jena 6” were choirboys, they were mistaken. They were thugs. They were not, however, murderous (or attempted-murderous) thugs, and being charged thusly was gross overcharging, for which protest was appropriate.
How do his actions in TX relate to his troubles in Jena? Just because he was treated unfairly in Jena does not make him a saint. And conversely, just because he is capable of being a general fuckstain doesn’t mean he was not treated unfairly in Jena.
Trying to corroborate the two is how this misguided OP got started.
If anything, the current charge, being for a misdemeanor, would suggest exactly the reverse: that the original Jena charges of attempted murder were grossly inflated. The current charge is more similar to the reduced Jena charges than to the original ones.
In any case, I think either way the argument is without merit.
See, while i might not agree exactly with every point you’ve made here (although i agree with much of what you say), the fact is that it’s a coherent argument that demonstrates a passing understanding of the issues involved.
The OP, on the other hand, marches in with his usual practice of offering a link, an oblique statement about its alleged significance, and absolutely no intelligent analysis or coherent argument. Not only that, but the oblique statement itself is offered as if its significance and its truth were self-evident, and as if the only possible reaction to it is to nod sagely and say “Yes, that’s exactly how i feel.”
If this were an unusual situation, we might forgive the OP, but the fact is that it’s his standard operating procedure. And, as i said in my earlier post, when he does actually try to offer arguments to support his badly-thought-out OPs, he generally gets his as handed to him because he’s a simplistic ignoramus who makes a hobby of seeking out complex issues related to race and ethnicity and interpreting them in the most simplistic and narrow-minded ways.
The last time he did it, only a couple of weeks ago, some of us did him the courtesy of arguing with him as if he were interested in a serious and rational discussion of the issues. But he’s not, and i’m no longer going to waste time trying to parse logical arguments out of his retarded diatribes. You are welcome to act as his interlocutor, if you desire, but i’m not going to do him the courtesy of assuming that your rational discourse is actually representative of his “thinking” on the issue.
Except for the use of the word “corroborate” where you should have used “conflate,” you hit this one right on the head.
Bricker, hardly anyone was saying they were innocent, just that the charges were overdone and lopsidedly applied.
You are too astute a philosopher of jurisprudence not to know this.
Which is pretty much what **Bricker **said, unless I misunderstood.
Now, a hijack if I may. It really bugs me that alleged perpetrators are being “held under a bond of X” these days. It’s stupid. If you are under a bond, why are you being held? You must have a terrible lawyer if you are still in jail after the bond has been posted. And you are not “under” a bond until it has been posted. Until it has been posted, the bond is hypothetical. it has no existence in reality.
What bugs me is that there is a perfectly good expression that describes an alleged criminal for which a bond has been set, but not yet posted. Said citizen is properly referred to as being held “in lieu of bond.” With that in mind, what the hell does the following statement, lifted directly from the linked article, mean? Emphasis mine.
You’re correct, which is why I shouldn’t try to do too many things at once. Bricker remains the consummate philosopher he always was.
Before you injure your shoulder with further back patting mhendo, remember that this is the Pit, and not GD. I don’t really care if you agree with my point, or not. In case you haven’t noticed, the Pit is filled with opinions which aren’t palatable to everyone, and those who suffer from liberal guilt will not care for my observations.
Since you’ve mentioned racial equality, I’d like to make it known that I’m all for it. After four decades of programs, it is time for everyone, regardless of race, to be treated equally with respect to job applications, housing, and other venues. No more quotas, special hiring practices, set asides, or whatever else you’d like to call them. As you’re undoubtedly aware, some minority groups have flourished in the US, with minimal assistance.
With respect to the Jena 6, would you have felt equal outrage were it six white boys assaulting a black youth? Or, would you have given a shit at all if it were 6 on 1, they all being of the same race? Controversy sells papers, you know. Inasmuch as that wasn’t the case, we need to revisit the facts:
Regarding the recent arrest of Bryant Purvis, the arrest report offers this:
Note that both incidents report a subject being approached from behind. Really sporting.
Bricker correctly interprets my feelings and chooses the word “thug” to describe Mr. Purvis.
My post intends to point out to some that their beliefs are flawed, and that their support of others was undeserved.
Again, though, who here on the boards was disagreeing with this account?
The problem arose when the perpetrators of aggravated battery were charged with attempted murder, despite the lack of any evidence to support all the elements of that charge.
Thugs they are – but surely you agree that thugs are equally entitled to fair treatment at the hands of our criminal justice system, yes?
If you are inveighing against the idea that Purvis is some misunderstood saint, I certainly would agree – if I saw anyone making that argument. The only argument I’ve actually seen is one I agree with: thuggery should not be treated as murder.
What do the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have to say about this?
Purvis is a asshat, to be sure. A thug with a penchant for the sucker punch.
But are you saying civil rights activists backed the wrong defendant or the wrong Constitution?
In other news, Rodney King has been arrested several times since 1991, he obviously had that LAPD beatdown coming to him. :rolleyes:
Yes, but WTF was your point? Your OP had all the earmarks of race baiting, the indirect inferences that black thugs are getting a free pass everywhere, without explicitly saying anything at all. It is the kind of statement a Klansman would make while trying to remain within narrow enough bounds to be quoted in the evening news.
Good to see that your modus operandi doesn’t change. We seem to be following the usual progression, which goes something like this:
(a) duncewithcats offers oblique and stupid OP that demonstrates no coherent argument and reveals little except his incapacity for complex thought.
(b) People respond, telling him that he’s an idiot and that his OP makes no sense.
(c) duncewithcats returns, and acts as though the responses described in (b) were to a completely different issue. Goalpost-shifting at its best.
Let’s have a look at how it worked in this particular case.
(a) The moron writes an OP about a member of the Jena 6 who commits an assault. The OP appears to have no actual point (although, given the moron’s past history, one can be easily inferred). The implication of the OP seems to be something like, "Hey, all you liberals who weighed in on the Jena case, don’t you feel a bit stupid now?
(b) People, including me, point out that the OP is, como siempre, talking out his ass, and the fact that Purvis is a thug and not a very nice person has nothing to do with the issues of justice and constitutionality that were important in the Jena case.
(c) Moron returns, and acts as if anyone who criticized his OP must be arguing that the Jena 6 were choirboys, and as if we are somehow hypocrites regarding the Jena case.
I love how you act as though i’m some sort of hypocrite regarding the Jena case, when i have never even expressed an opinion on the Jena case on these boards before today. Go on, do a search and check. Not only that, but my responses in this thread so far have had less to do with my own opinion on the Jena case than with your own idiotic, simplistic contribution to this thread.
For the record (not that i really feel any need to justify or explain myself to a dribbling retard like you), i would have felt exactly the same about the case no matter who the victim was, and no matter who the perpetrators were. A key principle of our criminal justice system is treating all people equally under the law. I don’t expect you to believe me, and i really don’t care whether you do or not.
Why do we need to revisit those facts? Which of those facts have i called into question in this thread? I’ll give you a hint: not a single fucking one, you fanatical lunatic.
The fact that you chose to cut and paste that paragraph as if it makes some sort of argument for your case is indicative of just how little you understand the actual issues involved in the Jena controversy. Again, as usual.
And, as Bricker has also noted, NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS THREAD has denied that he is a thug. While it would be nice if, in all of our battles over the Constitution and the criminal justice system, we could pick and choose our cases so that we were only ever on the side of perfect defendants, that’s not how it works. Ernesto Miranda wasn’t a very nice guy either, by all accounts.
In cases like this, being on the side of the angels involves being on the side of questions of justice and equity that are bigger than any particular defendant. The fact that you don’t seem to comprehend that is a pretty damning indictment of your intelligence, your morals, or both.
Whose beliefs? And what beliefs have you shown to be flawed? And why was the support undeserved, given that the support was never predicated on the idea that the Jena 6 were choirboys?
Your simplemindedness on this issue would be staggering, if it weren’t so true to form.