You know, I’ve read three different articles about this story, and I just can’t seem to find the part where the Jena 6 were involved. It must be in there somewhere, though. I mean, why else would people keep bringing them up?
In any court I’ve practiced in, the jurors aren’t even told if if the lesser included offense is a misdemeanor or not. They probably would not be told.
He’s not really directly named after a skunk. Ironically enough, he’s named after a cartoon Indian from the L’il Abner comic strip. Funny…didn’t we destroy THEIR cultures?
I wonder why polecat disappeared once it was shown the reporter killed by the Black Muslim Bakery cartel was black (a fact already known by damn near anybody who had even the slightest real - by which I mean “concerned with justice” rather than “nugget to support my ideology” - interest of the case)? Maybe he went to the bunker to gather his “thoughts”.
I certainly know what it takes to kill someone - at least to the extent someone who has never beaten someone to death can. I have prosecuted and defended more than my share of murder cases, and the fact that the defendants were convicted is evidence that the jury thought they were, at least in part, culpable.
It is not a simple dicotomy of 1) they murdered him in cold blood for racist reasons or 2) they were totally innocent participants in an equal fight. I am not an expert on Penn. law, but I have never heard of a state that didn’t have gradations of homicide - from 1st degee murder to involuntary homicide.
The only thing I think I know for sure from the few reports we have is that the prosecutor (and perhaps the judge) thought it was murder and the defense attorney argued for a lesser included offense. The jury agreed with the defense. (I’ve been a prosecutor when this happens - it sucks) To conclude they did it because they are “rednecks” or because of the legal status or origin of the victim is jumping to conclusions.
Having experienced the same thing when race was not an issue, and without more evidence, I believe that the most likely reason the jury found as they did is that they bought the Defense Attorney’s spin.
You know, for somebody calling other people out for spinning, it’s curious that you left out the part about the nooses hung over the tree. It’s kind of a salient point.
As I said, I’m not saying I know why the jury decided as they did. What I am saying is that if they actually believed this was a “escalated fight”, they’re stupid.
Your right, bad choice of words on my part. What I meant to say is that the jury may have concluded that, as the paper indicated that “after the fight broke up, witnesses said Ramirez came back at the teens”. This doesn’t make combat equal, but it may belie the idea that the teens intended to kill him.
The statements about people assuming the motivation of the jury is not a direct response to you, emcee, but more of a response to the implications of the OP and the thread title.
Really? Because it’s totally unclear as to whether the “nooses” were nooses or lariats, or who they were aimed at and if they were related to any racial themes at all. It’s also unclear that there was even a real dispute over the tree being for “whites only”. In fact, the guy who asked to sit under the white tree admitted that he was making a joke. But hey, those points aren’t salient when we can oversimplify and make it all about the outrage.
So thank you for adding a little bit of anecdotal evidence that, yes, Virginia, there is a gray area. You don’t know all the facts, and I don’t know all the facts, and spinning it as some sort of redneck derby is just dumb, because that’s not what it was. I imagine that the same thing applies to the incident in the OP. But why should we bother when we can talking about things like killing babies or lynchings or waterboarding some mexicans or what have you. (Though I will admit the OP’s comparison to animal cruelty statutes was a Limbaugh-worthy spin move.)
Can I get an eyeroll from the crowd ?
ya, like maybe the local crochet society was having a craft sale that day. Hmmmmm?
What a steaming pile you’ve just delivered.
Oh, it was a joke to call it the “white tree” Ya, that’s it, just a joke. Can’t you take a joke Nigger?
ivn1188, you have just succeeded in making me vomit.
If you read the thread, you’ll see that my first statement is “I can’t get too worked up about this”. I also pointed out that other accounts make it appear that the fight/beating was about a girl, rather than about race.
The guy that jokingly asked was black. So I guess he could take a joke, although I’d rather you didn’t call him a nigger.
For what it’s worth, the jury are not to blame for the outcome of the trial. The Shenandoah police screwed up the evidence and actually aided the boys in getting their stories straight. Piekarsky’s mom is (and was at the time) dating one of the cops involved in the investigation.
The defense focused a lot on the color of the shoes that delivered the fatal kick. These shoes were never confiscated, despite witnesses describing them at the scene as the shoes that were on the feet of the boy who kicked Ramirez in the head. During the trial that brought up doubt as to who actually delivered the fatal blow. Also, a few of the prosecution’s witnesses were other teens also involved in the fight, one of which was to be trial along with the other two but pled guilty to federal charges instead. All people involved in the fight (Ramirez included) had been drinking that night, further losing credibility for their testimony.
Our local paper did a live blog covering the trial as it happened. Based on what was reported, I believe the justice system worked perfectly in this case. More serious charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I should say that that I think it’s heinous that these kids basically got away with murder, but that fault lies with the town cops. They are being investigated by the feds as a result of how they handled this case. Also, Piekarsky and Donchak will possibly face federal civil rights charges as well.
Here’s more than you’ll ever need to know about the incident and the proceedings. This article from today’s paper discusses the federal investigation into the town cops. And for what it’s worth, I live in Shenandoah so I’ve been saturated with this story for 11 months now.
And the White kid with the shotgun. And that a loaded shotgun somehow doesn’t meet the standard for assault with a deadly weapon … but sneakers do.
CMC fnord!
OK, so maybe the prosecution couldn’t show intent to kill, and maybe Pennsylvania requires that for a murder charge, rather than a “willful disregard for life” (although, I looked it up, and for third degree murder, that actually isn’t the case). And maybe manslaughter wasn’t an option.
But I just don’t get acquitting on aggravated assault in favor of simple assault. HIS BRAIN STARTED LEAKING OUT.
Did you sit there in the courtroom during all the testimony? No. You read one biased and slanted article, and you think you know better than the jury. I have sat through a few trials, and until you have at the very least read the entire transcript, you have no fucking idea of what you’re talking about. Don’t get me wrong, it’s certainly possible the jury decided this along racial lines, giving a pass to some “good old boys” but being as they still convicted them of a pretty serious felony, it doesn’t look like they gave them a free pass to me.
hocow seems to have better info that the rest of you dudes. Read his cites- at least- then come back.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I read only “one biased and slanted article”. I’m pretty sure were both working with basically the same information here. I’m sorry but having “sat through a few trials”, doesn’t really count for much, because they’re not this trial.
The Republican Party and anti-immigration movement have been very successful in their demonizing of Hispanics, regardless of their immigration status.
Exactly. Did *you *sit through THIS trial? I am not working with any information, except that I am pretty damn sure that anyone who second guesses a jury - without at least reading the entire transcript- is an idiot.
My experience is just that what a biased slanted news article tells you is not even close to what goes on in the courtroom and what the Jury is told.
Unless you viewed all of the evidence, heard the arguments, and sat in on the jury deliberations, you are talking out of your ass. Period.
But, having said that, one can certainly express outrage at the result. I find my unhappiness level rising over the fact that the defendants in this case may be getting a pass on the basis that the prosecution cannot manage to point a finger at which individual managed to deliver the fatal blows. The whole group should be equally responsible for the death if any of them are responsible, since they acted in concert, even if they didn’t intentionally conspire to do so. Short of leaving the scene, or attempting to stop the person(s) who finished the victim off, each and every one should be guilty of a homicide. Which particular homicide should then be dependent upon things like intent, actions of the victim, etc.
I think it is naive to believe that the ethnicity (Hispanics are not a “race”) of the victim had nothing or very little to do with either the fight, or the outcome of the legal proceedings. It might be the case, but I wouldn’t go “banco” on it. Passions in this country are quite high at the moment over the issue of immigration, legal or not, from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. However, as to the perps, in the absence of more evidence than we’ve been given, it would not appear that a criminal verdict of “guilty” could be reached by a jury on any crime involving as an element issues of anti-ethnicity actions. And while I have little doubt that the police were less than zealous in trying to find out the truth of the situation (it’s somewhat eerily similar to the sodomizations in the back of the bus that were taking place in a similar part of the country in New York state), is there really any evidence that that had to do with the ethnicity of the victim, as opposed to the simple fact that the victim wasn’t one of the town’s established elite? And without being in the jury room, can we say how much ethnicity played a part in their deliberations?
So outrage at result, yes. Outrage at the fact it’s an example of jerky small-town bigots who got away with killing a Hispanic? Getting a bit tenuous. Outrage at the injustice of certainty that that’s what this was? Probably not supported. YMMV.