The Jena 6

collegialmom · September 23, 2007, 10:40am

The media are afraid to criticize J & S, because they are afraid of being called rascist themselves. It all feeds on one another. I would have thought that the Tawanna Brawley episode itself would have discredited Sharpton, but there seems to be a dearth of black leaders now, so Sharpton and Jackson keep on goin’. I wonder about their funding, and how they support themselves and their travels. Does anyone know who contributes to their foundations, or whatever they have to support themselves now? Do they work for a living? Have churches and get donations?

Who would you identify as other national black leaders who make a difference? I am excluding Obama because he doesn’t seem to identify homself as a black leader because he wants more universal appeal for votes. Any leaders who could take the thrones from J & S?

soozievt · September 23, 2007, 10:48am

For those who think this case is only about some bad boys who assaulted someone…as opposed to the racial inequalities and injustices and overt racism involved…please read this:

Title of article: “FBI investigates supremacist anti-‘Jena 6’ Web site”
<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/fbi.jena.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/fbi.jena.ap/index.html</a>

Hate crimes are alive and well…which is what started this whole thing and continues…

(there was a situation, as well, in the last few days of some white boys with a truck with nooses hanging off of it in relation to this case)

razorsharp · September 23, 2007, 12:17pm

The website being investigated is in Virginia. Jena isn’t in Va. Now you are doing to tell me the Jena thugs beat up some white kid because of a website in Va.?

You have not shown any hate crimes.

The only hate crime I am aware of is when the white kid got jumped from behind and beaten unconscious. I am willing to bet he got beaten because he is white. If true, that’s the hate crime.

parabella · September 23, 2007, 1:04pm

razorsharp,

my understanding is that the white guy was beat up because of racist trash talk he was spouting. The tension was building for quiet a while. The reaction to the beating was disproportionate. Everybody agrees that the beaters should be appropriately punished, key word being APPROPRIATELY. 20 year prison sentence somehow doesn’t look like it to me.

soozievt · September 23, 2007, 1:18pm

The nooses are not a hate crime?

The website aimed at retribution to the Black defendants is not a hate crime?

A website can be based in VA and be broadcast internationally!

The nooses off the back of a truck was in the region during the recent rallies about the case. (that is not counting the nooses at the school in Jena)

The so called (by you) “Jena thugs” who beat up a white kid…um, did you forget that the white kids beat up a Black student as well? Drew a gun? I guess only one incident in isolation matters to you…my point exactly.

Did I say that? That would be impossible…sequentially! The reverse is true…the website is in retribution RACIALLY for the assault in Jena. Does the swatiska on the site not mean anything to you???

I guess the FBI is investigating that for the heck of it.

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 2:07pm

Yeah, razorsharp, I am astounded by how able you are to put on blinders and disregard anything except the single beating which the Jena 6 are at fault in.

Let’s do a quick recap:

Nooses hung on the tree, directly pointed towards the black students. <– HATE CRIME

Black students beaten by white man with beer bottle for coming to a “white party”. <– Assault and battery, definitely racial undertones

White student pulls shotgun on black students at a convenience store <– Some kind of firearms violation, at least.

The punishment for the above? Essentially nothing. The worst anyone got was probation, for the white man.

Finally, the Jena 6 beat Justin Barker, who was by almost all accounts spurting egregious racial slurs, and was told to “Stop running your mother****ing mouth” prior to the beating. Not saying that that makes the beating right, but just pointing out that a) he was asking for it, b) he had ample warning something would happen if he didn’t shut up, and c) the situation is not that a bunch of black kids jumped him without provocation, simply because he’s white.

uversa · September 23, 2007, 3:01pm

“there seems to be a dearth of black leaders now, so Sharpton and Jackson keep on goin’.”

There are plenty of other black voices in America, they just aren’t being heard because the mainstream media rushes to these two constantly like they are the only voices that count.

They didn’t even organize this protest, the netroots did. J and S were behind the curve and something of an afterthought.

razorsharp · September 23, 2007, 3:13pm

No. It is hate speech protected by the First Amendment. It is not a hate crime. Even if you wish to believe it is a crime, can a bunch of 16 year olds really understand the significance of such an act? I am sure they knew it would upset Blacks, but did they really know the significance of the symbol?

I am astounded that you can’t focus on the crime and instead get involved in the politics of the matter.

Justin Baker was assaulted by six thugs. Did Baker hang anything from a tree? I have not seen any evidence of that. Was Baker involved in a prior assault of a black person and used gun? Was Baker involved in drafting a website in Virginia? Until you involve Baker in any of these things, all you are doing is trying to justify the behavior of a bunch of black thugs because of the actions of a bunch of stupid whites. And the biggest assumption you are making is that the criminals engaged in their battery as a result of the tree incident, etc. So far the only explanation for the crime is that Baker supposedly ran is mouth at Bell. And we don’t even know if that really happned.

This case represents a lot of people trying to give soft treatment to a hardcore criminal (4 prior crimes including two assaults) because of unrelated racial incidents.

You folks fail the causality test.

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 3:32pm

No, hanging nooses is a hate crime. It’s not protected by the First Amendment by any stretch of the imagination. To say the kids didn’t understand the significance of the action is either incredibly naive or purposefully whitewashing the action, I can’t decide which.

As for the beating, will you please, please, please get it through your head that we’re not excusing it? I think the Jena 6 absolutely need to be charged with, and convicted of, assault and battery.

Barker ran his mouth. While he denies it, it’s pretty clear that it happened - otherwise there’s no good explanation for why the fight was started, since if the Jena 6 were just looking to beat a white kid they could’ve found lots other than Barker. He got what was coming to him. I’m not condoning the assault, but maybe he’ll think twice next time.

As for the Jena 6, you’re focusing so tightly on Bell, and so wrongly, that it’s almost impossible to get this through to you. Reading your post, I wonder if you don’t have some underlying biases. “A bunch of black thugs”? You are aware, of course, that other than Bell, none of the other 5 had a criminal record? Or did that fall out of your reckoning because they’re black, and thus automatically “thugs”?

The outrage in this case is that throughout, justice has been applied totally inequitable. THAT is what you should be outraged about. You should be HAPPY that the massive influx of civil rights activists has saved these kids from SECOND DEGREE MURDER charges. You should be APPLAUDING the work done so far. But instead, you ignore the MASSIVE injustices in the situation so far, and choose to focus solely on the fact that many activists are wrongly ignoring the crime committed. Yes, that’s wrong, but it’s nowhere near as wrong or unjust as the other things that have been happening. And until you can get the relative severities of the various injustices properly figured out, you’re going to keep arguing a ridiculous, narrow minded point.

yourworld · September 23, 2007, 3:58pm

Still aching to hear from Idmom06 on her curious point of view in her post #75…

If that’s not racism, what is ?

A lot of the black OJ jurors were on the makes, trying to getting paid interviews. One even said during the trial “what’s so big about couple of dead whites? A lot of my ancestors were killed by whites.” Only that idiot judge Ito didn’t throw out the juror, and the incompetent Marcia Clark/Chris Darden did absolutely nothing about it.

Will you make the same argument if a white jury acquitted a white killing a black ?

Idmom06, you rightfully called out racism by whites, but why you condone racism by blacks?

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 3:59pm

I don’t know about ldmom, but then whole OJ thing, especially that jury verdict, has horrified me with its blatant racism for a long time.

razorsharp · September 23, 2007, 3:59pm

Can you cite the LA statute making it a hate crime? If not, it is not a crime even if you wish it was.

You just did condon the battery. Shame on you.

I knew it would not be long before someone would presume racial motive by me simply because I don’t agree with them. Shame on you again. All of them are thugs because they beat some kid unconscious. They are black thugs because they are all black. You presume way too much.

Are you saying all six were charged with second degree murder? Check your facts.

No, I focus on the relevant evidence relating to a criminal prosecution. You focus on trees when trees have nothing to do with what level of crime with which Bell should be charged.

As it stands, it looks like the system worked. The appellate court prohibited the higher charges and returned the matter to the lower court. That’s the way justice is supposed to work.

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 4:11pm

“18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who “by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with… any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been” attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school. Penalties for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life terms or the death penalty.[1]”

That’s the federal hate crime law, which is easily applicable in this case.

No I didn’t. Here’s a corollary: I can say that a murderer deserves the death penalty, but still not be condoning someone taking justice into his own hands and murdering the criminal. Understand the logical difference between agreeing with the result and disagreeing with the action?

No, I assume racial motive because you only used the connotative “thugs” to describe the black kids. Never once did I see a reference to a “white thug” (the white man who beat the black kids), or a “white criminal”, or a “white racist”, or anything of the sort. You studiously separate the whites from their race, while at the same time labeling the Jena 6 strictly by their race. That is why I call you biased.

You’re right, only 5 out of 6 were. That doesn’t materially invalidate my point though, which was that far more than the “hardened criminal” Bell were charged with that wildly inflated crime.

No, you focus on the relevant evidence for ONE criminal prosecution, while ignoring all of the others. You fail to focus on every other event and action that created the situation in which this crime occurred (and the situation and the crime are inextricably intertwined), and then looking in that vacuum, condemn those who focus on the real issues as “condoning crime”.

However, I agree, justice is now being served. But as you sit there “satisfied”, you ignore the fact that WITHOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISM IN JENA, THAT JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED!

razorsharp · September 23, 2007, 5:20pm

I said State law, not federal law. There has been no federal prosecution to my knowledge. We are dealing with State law and minors. By the way, who were these three teens? Was the assault victim Justin Baker one of them? Try again.

You said “He got what was coming to him.” That is condoning the violent behavior of someone on his third assault.

Because the white kids are not part of this criminal prosecution against six thugs (oh I forgot, black thugs) who knocked unconscious Justin Baker.

It is no uncommon for prosecutors to throw every charge out there that they can in order to force people to try to plead guilty to lesser charges or to turn state’s evidence. It may not be right, but it happens to people of all races and I suspect it happened in LA.

Have the rest of them advanced in the appeals process as far as Bell’s case? If not, then focus on Bell is appropriate.

What you have not mentioned is that Bell’s public defender did not call any witnesses or put on a defense. Was he incompetent? Was he too a racist? Or did he know his client was guilty?

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 5:39pm

razorsharp, I can only conclude that you are being purposefully obtuse here.

You can’t just pick and choose which law gets applied. I have shown you that under Federal Law, it’s considered a hate crime. If you want a state law, go find one. If one doesn’t exist, it in no way weakens my argument, since the boys could be tried in Federal juvenile court.

Oh good, ignore the logical distinction I showed you. Are you really just trying to annoy me? Let me repost this:

I am saying I have no problem with Justin Barker getting beaten. I did NOT say I had no problem with the black boys beating him. Since you apparently ignored it, I will repost my earlier explanation:

The thoughts I have towards Barker getting beaten are the same I would have towards a rapist getting killed by inmates in jail. I don’t have any problem with the rapist getting killed - I think he deserves it. But I have a problem with the inmate doing the killing.

I’ll keep reposting it until you understand, because I suspect the subtlety of the distinction is escaping you at the moment.

I’m not talking purely about the Barker assault and you know it, and yet you continue to focus purely on that assault, independent of its circumstances.

That would be a valid argument if the same thing had happened in any of the other criminal cases involved in this incident. If the white boys had been charged with hate crimes and conspiracy to murder; if the white man had been charged with attempted murder; if the white boy who pulled the gun had been charged with a serious crime.

But THEY WEREN’T. Which is why, instead of being a legal maneuver, this reflects racism.

He was incompetent, and also underestimated the racism of the jury. He thought the DA had not proved his case. Your insinuation that he thought Bell was guilty is both blatantly misinformed and incredibly stupid.

Tell me, do you believe that the racist circumstances surrounding this assault are a bigger or smaller issue than the assault itself?

ldmom06 · September 23, 2007, 7:13pm

ha! ldmom occasionally has a life that interferes with CC…lol! Sorry I’m just catching up on all the recent posts…and unfortunately having to skim.

Imho, I cannot infer from the jury’s decision to acquit OJ that they hated whites. I think I can safely infer they showed preference to a man of their own race who had been a hero in their community. They were biased in favor of this man because of his race and his celebrity. But, honestly, had Nicole Simpson been black, I don’t think the verdict would have been any different.

Again, it is fine line…but racism to me is hatred of those of another race…as expressed by hanging nooses, cross burning, racial slurs… I don’t necessarily equate bias in favor of another of a similar race or religion or any other commonality, with hatred for those who are different. Btw… did we not have some here who defended ‘self segregation’ or a preference for one’s own race as NOT being racism and as being a natural thing??

To me, the verdict was an abomination because I felt there was sufficient evidence presented to convict OJ. (And believe me…I watched every minute of that trial since at the time I was a stay-at-home mom with a 3 year old who loved his naps. ;))

poetsheart · September 23, 2007, 7:29pm

Yeah, go ahead… Keep on making this ALL about Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, Mychal Bell and the beating of Justin Barker. Keep tossing in that magnificent red herring, O.J. Simpson, too (if it helps fuel your indignation and smug self-righteous). Go ahead and superglue those fingers in your ears, squeeze your eyes shut real tight, and whistle Dixie until Rhet comes back for Scarlet.

But anyone with half a brain and even a pea sized portion of personal integrity will see right through it:rolleyes:

razorsharp · September 23, 2007, 7:32pm

What exactly did Justin Barker say that would justify him being beaten?

Justin Barker did not engage in a crime, yet you compare him to someone who committed a crime. Your argument is not logical.

What I am telling you is that they are separate considerations. All of a sudden several thugs are racial heros defending justice, freedom and the American way. At least that is the impression Jackson, Sharpton, etc. give. There are a lot of people who are upset that Bell is not free. He belongs in jail. He has a pattern of criminal behavior including three beatings. I would not want that guy on the street. The matter has been properly addressed by the appellate court. There is no reason to believe the appellate court acted for any reason other than that its opinion was suppored by the law of LA.

1of42 · September 23, 2007, 7:39pm

Razorsharp, if you are not capable of understanding that the rapist example was a purely hypothetical situation intended solely to illustrate the distinction between not having a problem with an action and not having a problem with an actor, then this debate is a total waste of time. The argument was never meant to insinuate that Barker had committed a crime, nor that he was a rapist or anything, and if you think it was you’re not capable of the kind of abstract reasoning that you need to be to debate this.

As for what he said, almost every witness account said he was spouting racial slurs - I’m not privy to exactly which ones - and the only account which differed was his, in which he said that he said nothing. Does that strike you as likely? That he was just doing nothing and all of a sudden got jumped?

I agree, they are separate considerations - and the racism issue is a FAR BIGGER one.

How exactly did the appellate court “address” the racism? It addressed the SMALL SUBSET of the racism that was the conviction of Bell, that is all. It didn’t address the noose issue, didn’t address the fight at the party, didn’t address the DA’s pen remark, didn’t address the shotgun incident and subsequent charges, or any of that. Because those aren’t in its domain.

There are so many other issues that you appear willing to ignore here, that I am honestly astounded. So, instead of ignoring them, I’m calling you out:

**Do you believe that a suspension is a fair punishment for the noose incident?

Do you believe that it was fair and not racist for the DA to say that if students didn’t stop making a big deal of the nooses that he could “end [their] lives with a stroke of a pen”?

Do you believe that the white man who tried to assault the black boys with a beer bottle only deserved probation?

Do you believe that the right charges were laid in the incident where the white boy pulled the shotgun? Is it right that only the blacks were charged in that incident?

Do you believe that charging the other 4 adult-eligible boys in the Barker assault with second degree murder was the right thing to do?**

STOP IGNORING THE WIDER ISSUES. THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SITUATION. ADDRESS THEM.

poetsheart · September 23, 2007, 9:41pm

Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another or others, and Racial Discrimination is the predicating of one’s actions upon this belief.

The O.J. Jury may surely have shown favoritism toward him because he was a black man, but it wasn’t because they hated white people, or thought black people inherently superior. I think the turning point was when the “glove” didn’t fit. It was the one significant, made-for-televison scrap of “reasonable doubt” I believe the jury had been hoping for. I’ve never been a member of the “Cult of O.J.”, so I didn’t personally think it was “reasonable” enough. I believed he was guilty early on, and it disappointed me terribly. It saddened me to realize what a sick man he really must be. A sick, charming, dangerous man, and ever more dangerous because of his charisma.

I’ll tell you what I think was going on with the O.J. Simpson jury (even though this hasn’t got a d#*n thing to do with the case in Jena, LA): I think that they didn’t want to see the man fall from his pedestal. He had been one of a relative few number of black men of his time who had risen to almost universal acclaim, and social cach’e, he was celebrated as a athlete, admired for his charm and good looks, the darling of talk shows, sports commentator, movie star and role model. He was an example of what could be achieved against the odds. Nobody wanted to believe he was capable of such an unbelievably grisly and heartless act. Why would a man who seemed to have the world on a string, America virtually eating out of the palm of his hand, do such a thing? It boggled the imagination. He was a hero and role model to untold numbers of blacks. A LOT of black people were in utter denial. To admit that their hero, their role model, their man who beat the odds to rise to dizzying heights, was guilty of the cold blooded slaughter of two people (whatever their color), was to like giving up on a dream. The jury was looking for reasonable doubt the way a drowning man looks for a life ring.

Another thing that was going on at the time, had to do with the way black men everywhere, who were married to, or involved with white women, were suddenly being looked upon as potential O.J.s, like latent psychopaths. Television and radio commentators were analyzing the sexual/racial aspects of black male/white female relationships, and the O.J. case in particular, like it was indicative of black male pathology. Black males everywhere knew they were potentially being painted with the broad brush of O.J. Black people have always known that many white people think of them as a sort of social monolith, not as individuals. The actions of a Timothy McVey are seen only as indicative of the character failings of Timothy McVey, not of white men in general. The actions of an O.J. are seen as possibly indicative of the character of black men as a whole. Black people were hoping O.J. was innocent, because if he wasn’t, it would reflect poorly upon black men as a whole. They were personally invested in the outcome of the trial for this reason. It had nothing to do with “hating white people” or thinking that black people are superior. The O.J. jury may have been guilty of living in abject denial, subconsciously wanting to protect the image of a symbol of black success, and the image of black men in general. But racism? Well, really I don’t think so.

The Jena 6

CONNECT WITH US