[QUOTE=brazil84]
By the way, can somebody tell me exactly what it was that Justin Barker did that resulted in him having been attacked by the Jena 6?
[/QUOTE]
How would you define “attacked?”
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
You do realize this is a ridiculous thing to say, right? Nooses hanging from a tree is an iconic image of racial murder and cause a visceral reaction due to the history attached to it. Pictures of a noose stapled to a tree are not going to have the same effect.
[/QUOTE]
So your opinion about the whole situation would change if there had been flyers with pictures of nooses but not actual nooses?
set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon;
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Wouldn’t “past unconsciousness” be death?
I see Lonesomepolecat and Wee Bairn have not answered my question upthread.
Why?
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea who the up and coming black leaders are- thats why I asked the question. 
[QUOTE=brazil84]
How would you define “deface”?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it would not include putting up school-approved posters for school-sanctioned events.
Here is a picture of Justin Barker’s injuries. Does that look like the result of a felony attempted murder? The kid was treated and released, went to a school event that night. I have to think, if 6 people planned to murder someone and they got their hands on him, he’d have been a lot more hurt than he is in this picture. If the kid was gravely injured and almost died, I could see the attempted murder charge, but from this picture, I can’t see it.
Also, apparently, he was knocked unconscious by one punch, either from the punch itself or from how he hit the ground. He was not “beaten into unconsciousness” as has been claimed here. Not saying it’s OK, btw, just saying, it wasn’t an extensive or lengthy beating that led to him going unconscious. The fight itself was apparently pretty brief.
brazil84, why the hell would anyone put up flyers with nooses? I don’t understand why you are flogging that idiotic point to death when the issues here are much larger than the nooses v. flyers of nooses nitpick you are pursuing here.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, it would not include putting up school-approved posters for school-sanctioned events.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the problem is that criminal violations have to be set forth in writing in advance.
I think it is correct that the 1st Amendment doesn’t give one the right to display a noose on public property. On the other hand, it would be difficult to draft a criminal statute, punishing such behavior, that is consistent with the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Here is a picture of Justin Barker’s injuries. Does that look like the result of a felony attempted murder?
[/quote]
An attempt need not succeed to be an attempt. I don’t see anything in that picture that rules out the possibility of an attempted murder.
My only point is that it is difficult to draft a criminal statute that punishes such behavior and have the statute be consistent with the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Here is a picture of Justin Barker’s injuries. Does that look like the result of a felony attempted murder? The kid was treated and released, went to a school event that night. I have to think, if 6 people planned to murder someone and they got their hands on him, he’d have been a lot more hurt than he is in this picture. If the kid was gravely injured and almost died, I could see the attempted murder charge, but from this picture, I can’t see it.
Also, apparently, he was knocked unconscious by one punch, either from the punch itself or from how he hit the ground. He was not “beaten into unconsciousness” as has been claimed here. Not saying it’s OK, btw, just saying, it wasn’t an extensive or lengthy beating that led to him going unconscious. The fight itself was apparently pretty brief.
brazil84, why the hell would anyone put up flyers with nooses? I don’t understand why you are flogging that idiotic point to death when the issues here are much larger than the nooses v. flyers of nooses nitpick you are pursuing here.
[/QUOTE]
In regards to your first two paragraphs:
It looks like felony aggravated assault, which is similar to what the Jena 6 is charged with.
The victim being unconscious from the get go doesn’t make the violence perpetrated by the Blacks any less. 6 to 1 is enough to justify a serious violent felony, period. Continuing to beat and kick the the victim while he was unconscious is just an exhibition of an even more incredible level of violence.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
An attempt need not succeed to be an attempt. I don’t see anything in that picture that rules out the possibility of an attempted murder.
[/quote]
You must have a specific intent to kill in order to be guilty of attempted murder. Did they specifically set out to kill that boy? Or did they just want to beat his ass? It seems like the DA was throwing the book at the boys by charging them with attempted murder. This is likely the same DA who called the nooses “an innocent prank” (innocent? WTF?) and imprecated the black students who complained about it to let it go, saying, “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take your lives away with a stroke of my pen.” I think the contention here is that the charge of attempted murder is, pardon the pun, overkill here. The DA seems to be biased in his prosecutions.
There are hate crimes statutes and they are Constitutional.
Unregistered Bull, an “incredible level of violence”? One punch, and a series of kicks, that led to the boy being treated and released? Hyperbole does not suit this debate well, and I would caution against it.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Unregistered Bull, an “incredible level of violence”? One punch, and a series of kicks, that led to the boy being treated and released? Hyperbole does not suit this debate well, and I would caution against it.
[/QUOTE]
6 on 1 isn’t an incredible level of violence? Beating and kicking an unconscious victim is not an even more incredible level of violence? Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t help the debate either.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
You must have a specific intent to kill in order to be guilty of attempted murder.
[/quote]
Is that the law in Louisiana? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don’t know whether intent to inflict serious bodily harm can supply the mental state for attempted second degree murder.
I don’t know. And you certainly can’t tell just by looking at his injuries.
Which prosecution (or non-prosecution) are you comparing the Jena 6 to?
Read your own link.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They did it because he was an asshole and he needed a beat down. They probably went too far with it…
[/QUOTE]
I can only express horror that you are actually forcing me to side with UB here, but really; are you prepared to stand by this apparent condonement of extra-judicial group beatings? For fuck’s sake, they probably went too far with it? No fucking shit! Exactly how far would have been okay with you?
You realise it’s possible to condemn the authorities’ prosecutorial decisions, the original race-baiting, and the assault, right? Why on earth are you trying to mitigate a six on one beating? Do you think it makes the (valid) complaints about inequities in the prosecution system appear better, or do you think it makes you seem completely one-eyed? Because to me, it’s the latter.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They did it because he was an asshole and he needed a beat down.
[/QUOTE]
What exactly did he do anyway?
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
6 on 1 isn’t an incredible level of violence? Beating and kicking an unconscious victim is not an even more incredible level of violence? Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t help the debate either.
[/QUOTE]
But don’t you get it? The 6 were black and the one was a racist white man. He had it coming, and they rightly gave it to him. [/sarcasm]
It seems that a lot of people are assuming that the victim of the beating was one of the noose-hangers. I haven’t seen any indication that even the Jena 6 are making that claim. Maybe I’m just missing some info here.
This thread is pretty disturbing. A lot of posters who generally seem to make sense, suddenly seem to be condoning mob violence, up to and including posting a link to a photograph of a somewhat messed up Justin Barker apparently intending to ridicule the insufficiency of his visible injuries ? Would your attitude be the same if Justin Barker was a woman ? A young child ? If police had given him the beating ? How would you have responded to the situation if you’d been there when it happened ?
There’s something a little obscene about downplaying the violence involved in a 6 on 1 beating involving a concussion and kicking. That’s a dangerous and scary situation.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
6 on 1 isn’t an incredible level of violence? Beating and kicking an unconscious victim is not an even more incredible level of violence? Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t help the debate either.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think it’s an incredible level of violence. Sorry. I’ve seen kids come out of fights in high school with much worse injuries and the perpetrators were not charged with attempted murder. That’s just a fact. Looking at the picture of Barker’s injuries, they just don’t seem that incredible to me under the circumstances. Considering the hostilities and build-up for that beating, it actually seems pretty mild to me. If you think that’s an incredible level of violence, you’re being disingenuous, not me.
brazil84, you read what the DA said to the boys about the nooses being an “innocent prank.” That shows bias on his part, I’d say. He also threatened the boys complaining about the attack to drop the issue. Also, Robert Bailey, a black student, was beaten for trying to attend a “white party,” and a bottle was broken over his head. The person responsible for that was charged with simple assault. Same DA. He doesn’t seem particularly fair-minded to me.
I did read my own link, and it does state that hate speech statutues do exist and that enhanced penalties for hate speech can be applied. There has been some debate, but the First Amendment does not protect bigoted speech that is specifically connected with the incitement to violence. My cite states that “challenges to penalty-enhancement statutes on the basis of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution appear to be largely foreclosed.” So maybe it’s you who needs to read the link.
[QUOTE=Themenin]
A lot of posters who generally seem to make sense, suddenly seem to be condoning mob violence, up to and including posting a link to a photograph of a somewhat messed up Justin Barker apparently intending to ridicule the insufficiency of his visible injuries ?
[/quote]
He was assaulted and his attackers should be charged. I dispute the attempted murder charge and I imagine it will not be proven. People in this thread are calling that beating “an incredible level of violence,” and saying he was “beaten into unconsciousness.” Those descriptions are inaccurate and inflammatory. Should those descriptions be allowed to pass?
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
brazil84, you read what the DA said to the boys about the nooses being an “innocent prank.” That shows bias on his part, I’d say. He also threatened the boys complaining about the attack to drop the issue. Also, Robert Bailey, a black student, was beaten for trying to attend a “white party,” and a bottle was broken over his head. The person responsible for that was charged with simple assault. Same DA.
[/quote]
Can you give me cites for this stuff? Thanks.
Sure, and how would you draft an enhancement statute that covers tying a noose to a tree at a school?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Can you give me cites for this stuff? Thanks.
[/quote]
Cited by me earlier in this thread. Read some links already provided.
Now I need to specifically prove this to you? You said it’s hard to make hate speech laws that are Constitutional. I proved that they have been made. Give it a rest.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Can you give me cites for this stuff? Thanks.
[/QUOTE]
Read this. It seems to summarize the situation. The relevant passage describes the events after the school was burned: