ADad

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/op...on&oref=slogin

marite

That op-ed piece disturbed me.

Reed Walters makes no mention of the claims that have been circulated regarding his own role in fanning the flames.

Nor does he explain why he brought in a charge of attempted murder. While the Jena 6 clearly deserve punishment for their action, the charge is ludicrous. Consider that if they had really wanted to murder the victim, they could easily have done so. They did not. His injuries were serious, but not so serious that they prevented him from being able to attend a school function later that day.

I find that whole piece quite self-serving.

garland

The piece was self-serving, and I absolutely agree that justice seems to be dished out unevenly in this town.

But, I must comment on the oft-repeated statement that "he went to a school function later that day" so he couldn't have been hurt that bad.

My D was knocked down and stomped by a gang of thugs. She had a damaged eye, a broken nose, and internal injuries. She was not rendered unconscious, as apparently this young man was.

If there had been an important school ceremony that night (apparently it was some kind of senior "ring" ceremony that was considered very important to the student) she would have insisted on going.

Look, this kid probably did open his mouth and say stupid things, but no one deserved this kind of pain. I know we all agree that the students need to be punished--fairly--but at the same time, there is a tendency to brush off the injuries and dismiss them because he went to the school that night. From personal experience, I think that's unfair.

The miscarriage of justice in this case is compelling, but I still don't want to lose sight of the individual (as obnoxious as he may or may not be.)

standrews

Sorry to hear about your D. You make a good point about the degree of injury having little to with the viciousness of the attack. Using similar logic one might posit, if it took a year for Jena to reach national prominence, how much of a miscarriage of justice can it be?

marite

Garland:

Sorry to hear about your D!

I totally agree that the Jena 6 deserved to be punished for their action--and have said so. What I tried to suggest is that if they had truly wanted to murder the guy, they could easily have done so. They did not. Murder, attempted or not, was not their aim. They could have been charged with GBH. Reed Walters chose to go after them with a charge of attempted murder.

ixjunitxi

kid spent 9 months in jail (still in jail) for a school yard fight... thats unjust however you look at it. Put it this way, Drunk Driving w/ a death is from 6mos-2 yrs in jail at judges discretion. 9 mos for a school yard fight is beyond reasonable

ldmom06

"I cannot overemphasize how abhorrent and stupid I find the placing of the nooses on the schoolyard tree in late August 2006. If those who committed that act considered it a prank, their sense of humor is seriously distorted. It was mean-spirited and deserves the condemnation of all decent people.

But it broke no law. I searched the Louisiana criminal code for a crime that I could prosecute. There is none."
-------------------------------

Then why, if Mr. Reed finds the act so horrible, while serving in the capacity of parish school board attorney, does he condone (at a minimum) reversal of the principal's decision to suspend the kids responsible for the nooses?

ldmom06

I have to agree, Mr. Walters doesn't get it. Or he does get it and is employing the same diversionary tactics as those who want to justify the unfair judicial treatment received by the Jena 6. Maybe he isn't listening or may he just thinks we are all stupid.

There is far more to juxtapose against the attack on Mr. Barker than the noose incident. The bigger questions Mr. Reed has to answer is why when a white adult attacks a black minor with a beer bottle, it is misdemeanor battery in his district, and when a black minor attacks a black minor, it is also misdemeanor battery...but when a black minor attacks a white minor, he feels he can only find satisfaction in felony attempted murder statutes?

Furthermore, if all a person had to go on was Mr. Reed's account, that person would think that Mr. Barker was just an uninvolved innocent passerby in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if that WERE true and therefore there was no intent to murder Mr. Barker, then how could he have justified attempted murder charges?

And finally, why does Mr. Reed focus so much of his article on the second degree battery charges which is what they are NOW charged with? Doesn't he get it? What has inflamed everyone is his ORIGINAL decision to charge these black kids with attempted murder, an action that was only reversed after public outrage was expressed.

Mr. Reed condemns the public for their outrage, claiming to be misunderstood; but absent the outrage, his malicious intent would have been crystal clear evidenced by 16 and 17 year old kids sitting in a prison cell in Angola for the next 20 years.

Putting lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig.

fireflyscout

In my school district, the noose incident would be considered a "terroristic threat" and would, at a minimum, require the perpetrators to be sent to disciplinary alternative school. The school board was wrong, wrong, wrong to reverse the principal's discipline and should be held accountable for their action.

I didn't realize Mr. Reed was also the parish school board attorney - isn't that something of a conflict of interest?

Hunt

"Consider that if they had really wanted to murder the victim, they could easily have done so. They did not. His injuries were serious, but not so serious that they prevented him from being able to attend a school function later that day."

This statement--which I have seen several places--is not supported by the facts. The beating only stopped when it was broken up by coaches and other students, so it is inaccurate to suggest that the assailants chose to limit the damage inflicted.

ldmom06

It is also very possible and likely the assailants were completely unaware Mr. Barker was unconscious when they kicked him....if you want to get particular hunt. So, it is also inaccurate to suggest they assaulted him with intent to murder.

Asked my ER RN brother-in-law who has served not only in the military, but time in some of the roughest ERs in Houston. He says, no way does the kid go home, or to any school function, if there is even slight suspicion of a serious head injury. It would not have been permitted by docs....he would have had to sign himself out ama. Seems if that had happened, we would have heard about it.

Again, punish those kids for beating Mr. Barker. But punish them fairly. That's all I ask.

Hunt

What did they say as they were kicking him? Unless you know the answer to this, you really don't know if an attempted murder charge was supportable or not. Similarly, the other incidents in which only misdemeanor battery was charged do not, as far as I know, include incidents in which a group of people beat a single person, but rather were more fairly categorized as fights--surely you don't think this particular incident can really be described as a fight? As I suggested in another thread, unless you really know the facts, it's not wise to interpret the limited facts you have too definitively.

marite

^But Reed Walters did, didn't he? And changed his mind after it made national news? And does not say in his piece that he might have considered recusing himself since he is also the school board's attorney, the same school board that reversed the principal's original decision to expel the white kids that had perpetrated an act that he describes as "abhorrent and stupid?" Nor does he say that
It seems to me that it is exactly what he tried to do when he charged them with attempted murder. He would make them disappear for 22 years.

Hunt

The attempted murder charge against Bell was reduced on the first day of his trial. Was it national news yet then? What I'm saying is that the DA may have had evidence which would have allowed him to support a charge of attempted murder--if, for example, one or more of the defendants said, "We're going to kill you." Also, don't the facts we know suggest that this was a premeditated attack, since it was earlier in the day when the victim made remarks? Whether attempted murder was the best charge under the totality of the circumstances is a different story--it would be my guess that it is unlikely that the attackers actually intended to kill their victim, and so it might be hard to get a conviction on that charge. Of course, it is a common strategy by prosecutors to bring the most serious charges that they think will withstand a motion to dismiss, because that puts pressure on the defendants to plead guilty. But they'll only take a charge to trial if they think they can get a conviction.
Incidentally, for how long do you think a 16-year-old or 17-year-old should disappear if he is part of a gang that beats a boy into unconsciousness and kicks him in the head, until the attack is broken up by others? I agree that 22 years is probably too long (and highly unlikely, anyway), but if you were the sentencing judge in the case, how long would you send him away for? And how much would your answer change if the attack were unproked, vs. in retaliation for the victim's prior statements?

soozievt

This boy was in jail a while before the charge was reduced. It was reduced due to the attention the case has been given for its unequal carriage of justice. I live in VT, far from Louisiana and I had heard of this case long before that charge was reduced.