But does that mean that murder was intended? These are high school students we’re talking about right? Could it just be that they were behaving like typical, testosterone and anger driven young men and were just caught up in the heat of the moment? Earlier on in the thread someone kept referring to them as “thugs” as if they’d already been tried and convicted. How to we know they’re not just normal HS kids that, motivated by the earlier racial insult of the nooses, just lost control and it ended up in a fight?
I’m not the least bit left, nor am I even remotely bleeding heart, but as I stated above, NONE of us, unless we’re Jena-ites, know the whole story.
6 people kicking an unconscious person in the head deserve felony convictions and prison time regardless of their or their victim’s race or their footwear.
I don’t know what the elements of “attempted second degree murder” are in Louisiana. But if you do a google search for “brutal beating” and “attempted murder,” you will see that it’s not uncommon for these sorts of charges to be brought.
Where (and what news agency) does it say they were kicking him in the head? Sorry if someone’s already posted this one, but I missed it. Again, not that I’m defending them. What they did was wrong and IANAL, but isn’t intent the key here?
Angry young men aren’t necessarily going to be thinking “oh ooops, guess that’s enough, we’ve made our point” when they’re in the heat of the moment.
I agree that they were wrong, and I agree that they need to face the consequences of their actions. What I disagree with is them being tried and convicted on what people (the courts included) were assuming were the motives rather than on what really happened.
If it was a fight that got out of hand then they should definitely pay for their part in that. But I don’t think it’s ethically right to automatically make the leap from assault to attempted murder, without the actual facts.
So it seems clear that if you are being charged with actual second degree murder, intent to inflict serious bodily harm will satisfy the intent requirement under Louisiana Law.
The next question is whether the same substitution can be made to charge somebody with “attempt.” I don’t know the answer to this question.
From the news reports, it seems pretty clear that the facts permit an inference that the defendants intended to do serious bodily harm. It is also possible that there is enough evidence to support an inference that the defendants intended for the victim to die.
In any event, the charges against the defendants do not seem outrageous to me. A 6 on 1 beating where the victim is kicked after he is down is far beyond the sort of garden variety high school violence that used to be tolerated.
One thing to consider, at least last I heard in CA, 3-1 odds unarmed is considered use of lethal force for self defense purposes. Being beaten on by 6 would definitely qualify under CA law. If you are being attacked 6-1 and draw a gun and kill 3 of them while still under attack you will probably not be charged as long as you did not initiate the confrontation.
Burning a flag in front of a group of war veterans is freedom of speech.
Displaying a swastika in front of synagogue is freedom of speech.
Laying down a crucifix in front of a church and pissing on it is freedom of speech.
Phred Phelps exercises his right to free speech every time he sets up his circus of shit outside of a soldiers’ funeral.
Displaying the nooses, also freedom of speech.
You don’t like it?
Tough shit. Freedom of speech is the very first amendment of our constitution, and the reason we are where we are today. The definition of free speech is broad, it is inclusive it is absolutely necessary and it is almost absolute (with noted exceptions i.e. fire in a crowded theater, liabel/slander etc) it sounds though as if you would rather his rights were taken away because you don’t like his message.
No, sorry, displaying nooses *on school property * is hate speech, which is not protected under the First Amendment. Drawing a swastika on a synagogue is protected either, nor is burning a cross on someone’s lawn. Burning a flag in a public place is legal, as is a KKK rally in public with a permit, etc.
No. Freedom of speech would be the kids hanging nooses in their own yards. Freedom of speech does not include onto hanging nooses from a tree at the local public school. That’s intimidation, not free speech.
I can’t stress this enough: Nooses are not a prank. The use of nooses sends a specific message that everybody* understands. This is not a free speech issue.
*everybody but those trying to weasel their way out of admitting they are racists.
Then at that point he was “unconsciousness.” What is past unconsciousness? Wouldn’t that simply be “after he was unconsciousness”? Surely, you can see the difference?