I think I heard they cut it down today.
OK, let’s go with that wikipedia article. Tell me, where (besides the final attempted murder charge, which I already opined was out of line) an incorrect judgement was made.
Let’s start with nooses in the “white tree”. I don’t know about where you come from, but in my high school, 3 days suspension was the 2nd worst punishment that was ever handed out - the only thing beyond that was expulsion. The typical punishment for a “prank” was a day or two of after-school detention (thinking here of some posters that were put up in my high school mocking some of the teachers). So, the question is, did the students who hung the nooses intend an actual threat (sit under our tree and we’ll kill ya), or was it intended as a prank, albeit in very, very poor taste? If it was a threat, then expulsion would have been the correct move. However, the wiki article says the school officials determined it was a prank (and provides no evidence that it may have been otherwise). For that, they gave a punishment significantly upgraded from standard prank-level punishment, which is of course appropriate due to the extremely poor taste of the prank. Seems to me to be about right. Unless you have evidence that the prank was intended as an actual threat, what other punishment would you advocate, other than what, in my experience, is the highest punishment offered outside of expulsion?
Then there’s the fight at the party. There’s no details about who actually started it, but we do know that Bailey and co. were trying to enter where they weren’t invited, and we know that everybody who got involved in the fight, white or black, was asked to leave the party. We also know that nobody had to receive any medical attention as a result of the fight. When all was said and done, the only person the officials felt they had enough evidence to stick anything on was one white guy (OMG racism! No blacks got charged!). Should more white guys have been charged with anything? How about any of the black guys? Was the assault charge they hit one guy with not the appropriate charge?
The very next day, cops get called in for another incident, again involving Bailey. You’ve got a white kid claiming that he was being chased by a group of black kids, which is why he had to get his gun to protect himself, and most likely a group of black kids claiming the white kid started it all. You’ve got word vs. word, and all you can go with is what you have proof of. Assuming that the white kid was legal to carry the shotgun in his vehicle, and unable to prove that it was pulled out for any purpose other than self defense, the only thing you know for sure is that the shotgun, that did not belong to Bailey, was taken away and kept by Bailey. There’s your theft charge. What more would you have done in this situation?
Two days later. Cops get called again. It’s Bailey again. Third time in four days, and this time, it’s worse. This time, it’s a six-on-one, with plenty of witnesses, including witnesses that the boys were striking the head of an unconscious victim. This time, someone had to be carted off to the hospital. So this time, the charges get a lot more serious.
Now, I’ve already said that I think calling a tennis shoe a deadly weapon is out-of-line. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a distinction for deadly weapon when anything can be called one. I’ve also already said that attempted murder is a bit much, although in all honesty, if you’re in a fight and your opponent is already unconscious, and you’re still hitting him, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? But I think by this point, it had become pretty clear that Bailey and co. were some thugs, and were in need of some stiff penalties.
I’m not saying there’s no racism in Jena. Hell, I think we all know as much progress has been made, there’s still just a li’l bit too much racism everywhere. But I fail to see in this case where the authorities let anybody off the hook that they had sufficient evidence to pursue, and I fail to see how the Jena Six can be considered anything but violent criminals.
I’m sorry that this happened to you, but that doesn’t change the facts in this case. In all honesty, as a victim of racism, do you not get offended that there are people out there who are making a circus out of race issues by declaring racism every time somebody black is involved in a legal battle?
Anybody really think that a tennis shoe fits that description?
CMC fnord!
From the same Wiki article which provided your quote:
A tennis shoe becomes a deadly weapon when it is propelled, with force, repeatedly against the anatomy of another human being, with the intent of causing harm to that person.
A baseball bat, a length of pipe, a 2 x 4…many everyday innocuous objects with legitimate purposes are easily employed as instruments of crime based upon the intent of the actor.
But that could be anything. Surely “assault with a deadly weapon” is redundant, since in every assault there will be a deadly weapon.
What, in your view, differentiates a tennis-shoed foot from a bare foot in terms of violent potential? Both are capable of causing the same amount of damage; would you consider a bare foot to be a deadly weapon? One could even argue that a bare foot is more dangerous, since the shoe effectively acts as padding for the blows. There’s a reason boxers wear gloves.
Your examples of baseball bats and 2x4s merely highlight the weakness of your argument; both considerably (and obviously) increase the offensive capacity of a person wielding them. This does not obviously apply to trainers. Steel toe-capped boots, sure; spiked shoes, sure; but trainers? Is a person wearing trainers really any more dangerous than a barefoot one? If they kick someone, are they really intentionally utilising some perceived extra damage from their trainers, or are they just kicking them? If they punch someone while wearing leather gloves, are those gloves a deadly weapon?
To start a hijack, at what point does a normally innocuous everyday item become a deadly weapon?
I don’t defend classifying sneakers as a deadly weapon.
But, I also can’t help thinking that there are times I’d consider a pillow, or plastic bag, to be something that could be used as means of execution. In which case I’d have a hard time arguing against either of those items being deadly weapons in those specific instances.
The trees are all made equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Yes, I suppose that you are right about the shoes not quite getting into “deadly weapon” status – they just are not at “baseball bats and 2x4s”-level, anyway!
But still – this guy was kicking somebody in the head! People can suffer irreversible brain damage or even die from such blows. (The victim happened to turn out okay, but there are no guarantee that he would!) Unless the attacker was a total moron, he had to know that! Repeated kicks to the cranium seem to me me to be an indication that the attackers intended grievous bodily harm or death!
And, of course, Sharpton and Jackson would be fine if the fool was set free right now!
To go by the Wisconsin definition quoted on the wikipedia page (since I can’t find any other one online):
Relevant bit bolded. So the prosecutors either have to show calculation on the part of the assailant, or some sufficient degree of likeliness that the implement would cause death or grievous harm. In the examples you give, an assailant using those things to suffocate someone would clearly both be acting calculatedly, with the knowledge that the way in which he was using the implements would be likely to cause death.
Where this differs from the example of trainers is that the increased danger posed by trainers as opposed to bare feet is nebulous at best, non-existent at worst, and the matter of intent on the part of the assailant is far more difficult to prove, since pretty much everyone wears trainers; how does one distinguish between the “calculated” use of those as offensive tools, and someone just happening to be wearing them?
By contrast, AIUI someone wearing steel toecaps wouldn’t have to have calculation shown, since it would probably be considered sufficiently obvious that such footwear is highly likely to cause death or grievous harm.
As a further hijack, we might like to discuss what offender against the English language came up with “instrumentality” as a noun. Honestly. And yes, I know it’s in several online dictionaries. Maketh no difference.
gytalf2000, I’m really only addressing the point about the classification of deadly weapons; I make no comment whatsoever about the Jena 6, nor Sharpton and Jackson. You’re quite right, kicking someone in the head is kicking someone in the head, no two ways about it. But if you think that intent to kill is indeed demonstrable, this should be reflected in the primary charge, rather than by twisting the definition of “deadly weapon” beyond all reasonable limits. The shoes are (to my mind) irrelevant; either this really was a case of attempted murder, or one of non-aggravated assault.
Agreed, though I’d be pretty sympathetic to the claim that non-steel toed hiking boots, or other heavy-duty, rigid footwear could be so defined.
Probably the same genius that gave us the noun “analyzation” since there’s obviously no other noun remotely similar to it.
This is beginning to look more and more like a replay of the whole Rodney King foolishness on a smaller scale. A black guy goes around looking for trouble and finds it, and then a bunch of black racists start screaming “White racism!” And of course, there’ll always be demagogues like Al Sharpton & Co. looking for exactly such an opportunity.
In the Washington Post today they note every restaurant in a town overflowing with people is closed. That’s pretty telling what the mind set is there.
They deserve Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Yeah, sure. God forbid that white people should ever do anything to oppose black racism. :rolleyes:
The demonstrators are there to whip up resentment and hated towards whites. It has nothing to do with justice.
My hangup with the charges against the black students is with the “intent to kill” clause. If they kicked him until he was unconscious and they had really intended to kill him, ISTM that it would have been fairly simple to complete the act.
Given that, it seems obvious that the Jena 6 should be charged with something. Hanging a noose from a tree does not entitle someone to vigilante justice. Were the boys who hung the nooses assholes? Most definitely. Unfortunately, being an asshole is not a crime. Is hanging a noose a “hate crime”? Quite possibly. That’s for the courts to decide. If you don’t like the decision of the school board to reduce the expulsions to suspensions (and I don’t) then you should try to get them removed from office either through a recall (if possible) or during the next election. “Free the Jena 6 Thugs” is not a viable solution.
[HIJACK]
I Don’t know if they came up with it, but “Instrumentality” has been used for quite a while ijn science fiction, where I suspect its odd sound works well. It’s in the script for “Forbidden Planet” (1956) – “A Civilization without physical Instrumentality…”, and it was used to describe the Future state of Man by Cordwainer Smith – “The Instrumentality of Mankind” ( Instrumentality of Mankind - Wikipedia ) .
Note that in neither of these cases is it used as a synonym for “Instrument”. The present-day used of “Instrumentality” cited above is an idiot.
[/HIJACK]
“The demonstrators are there to whip up resentment and hated towards whites. It has nothing to do with justice.” Really? Everyone of them?
I’m sorry, but middle of the road and thoughtful arguments where you realize that both sides are assholes and deserve the punishment that fits the crime will not be tolerated. One side or the other must be completely right and the other completely wrong.
Either the white kid was screaming racial epithets and threatening to kill people and deserved his fate, or he was busy doing his algebra homework when some evil black kids descended on him for no reason. You aren’t allowed to believe that this white kid was an instigator and an asshole, though one who didn’t deserve the beatdown that he got.
Likewise, either these kids are racist thugs looking to kill a white kid and deserve to be thrown in jail forever, or they were busy helping old ladies across the street when this whole thing went down and weren’t even involved so deserved to be freed. It’s not permitted to believe that these were just little opportunistic punks who saw a six on one opportunity, and took a school fight way too far and deserve to spend just a few nights in jail (or the juvenile equivalent).
It’s not that those kids shouldn’t be charged–I don’t think that’s the issue the “civil rights” protesters are concerned about. It’s what they were charged with, and the fact that white students in that town who had committed violent and potentially violent acts against black students were not charged at all.
Before the OP gets his or her blood boiling, perhaps he or she would like to actually read a little information and find out what the fuck is really going on?
I have been amazed at how many “short versions” of this story have been written up in the media, where they discuss only the noose “prank” and don’t discuss the beating of the black student at a party, or the gun that was pulled on black students.
At least Rev. Jackson’s cooling his inane “Obama’s acting white” rhetoric.