Jena 6 Situation

[lexy]

Again, I'm not wearing blinders. I stated that I do not believe that their charges were based upon racism. That's not wearing blinders, that is disagreeing.

To whom are you comparing their charges to? The only student that was arrested because of the barn fight? Keep in mind that he was the only one to face charges, so if you want harsher penalties for him, wouldn't it be fair that everyone involved in that fight face the higher charges? If you're talking about the students that hung the nooses and the student who pulled the shot-gun, then I 100% support their arrests as well.

I've already answered this.

This is all true, but it doesn't change the fact that no black citizens answered the jury summons, so how can you then complain about the fact that there was an all white jury? That just doesn't make logical sense. It would be one thing if the DA had excluded all of the potential jurors because of their race, but that is not what happened.

And there are black people who disagree that this is a case of racism altogether. Imagine that. You are making so many huge assumptions here I don't even know where to start.

1) You are making the assumption that there were enough black jurors summoned to have made a difference in the outcome of the trial had they responded.

2) Okay, even if you were operating on the assumption that there were only fewer than 5 black jurors amid the pool of 150. You make the assumption that they knew what the case was or that they didn't have legitimate reasons not to respond to the summon.

3) You make the assumption that if black jurors did answer the summons they would not have been dismissed during the initial screening process.

4) A - You make the assumption that a black juror would have influenced the outcome of the case and B - that the jurors had all the evidence/context we have. As I've already stated the case is legally sound on paper.

5) You make the assumption that a black juror who refused to render a guilty verdict would not be dismissed or if not that, that the case would be considered a mistrial and tried again at a later date.

This whole point about the jury is just a massive red herring. You know it's bullshit, yet you pursue this point incessantly because it's the only way you can "win" this argument.

 

[Chumly]

God i love gaf. Anyways just thought i put in that people on my campus were protesting/putting out flyers. Here what a portion said and I am direct quoting the flyer.

- THINGS GET OUT OF CONTROL - White student pulls gun on black students and two parties fight (December 2, 2006)

- White student not charged. Black students charge of assault changed to attempted second-degree murder by District Attorney

- One student sent to retrial due to being unjustly tried as an adult (Septermber 17, 2007)

- Remaining 5 wait for trial - 3 with decreased charges of aggravated second - degree battery and conspiracy

It then goes on saying that we should free the black people for being unjustly charged and tells you to protest this racism.....

After reading the entrys on Wiki and seeing the CNN stuff I cannot believe the bullshit lies protesters are spreading. It just fucking pisses me off that they would so blatantly misinform people about this when its such a sensitive subject. I guess thats college for you though. You always got crazy people wanting to protest everything. (Blah blah blah I realism there was racism but this was not the way to handle it or protest it and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron)

 

[mre]

I've already answered this.

If you have, then I apologize that I missed it earlier, but answer this: do you want everyone involved in the barn fight to face higher charges?

And there are black people who disagree that this is a case of racism altogether. Imagine that.

I don't have to imagine this, and I'm curious why you would think that I hold this opinion?

You are making so many huge assumptions here I don't even know where to start.

1) You are making the assumption that there were enough black jurors summoned to have made a difference in the outcome of the trial had they responded.

2) Okay, even if you were operating on the assumption that there were only fewer than 5 black jurors amid the pool of 150. You make the assumption that they knew what the case was or that they didn't have legitimate reasons not to respond to the summon.

3) You make the assumption that if black jurors did answer the summons they would not have been dismissed during the initial screening process.

4) A - You make the assumption that a black juror would have influenced the outcome of the case and B - that the jurors had all the evidence/context we have. As I've already stated the case is legally sound on paper.

5) You make the assumption that a black juror who refused to render a guilty verdict would not be dismissed or if not that, that the case would be considered a mistrial and tried again at a later date.

This whole point about the jury is just a massive red herring. You know it's bullshit, yet you pursue this point incessantly because it's the only way you can "win" this argument.

No, I don't assume anything and I agree that it's a red herring issue, but it is one being brought up as an example of Bell not getting a fair trial. The only point that I have made on the jury issue is that it is not logical to complain about an all white jury when the only potential jurors were white, because none of the potential black jurrors answered their summons.

 

[lexy]

First the jury is point on which you harp as important and now the racial make up of the jury is irrelavent?

Curse my inflammatory, poorly reasoned, consistency to adhere to the logic I set forth.

The fact that I can deflect your arguments and laugh and joke while I do it represents the serious gap in truth we have going on here.

Here's what I believe, to recap:

The Jena 6 should be charged with assault. The ones with 3 or more priors should be charged as adults. The ones without as juveniles. The white kid (Barker) should receive no compensation.

The gun incident needs to be revisited, by a competent outside source. The appropriate punishment to the correct offenders should be administered, again, an outside judiciary is important.

The three responsible for the noose incident need to be punished in a public manner, embarassing their families who, more than likely, are the source of and racist ideas they have.

Handling this situation in any other way would serve to exacerbate racial tension.

As a side note I added Mos Def to my list of people who should stick to movies and music and leave the thinking to other people. Furthermore, I feel the police nationwide should add him to their "Don't tase me, bro? Don't think so!" list. Just because, I mean, really, look at his hats, he looks ludicrous...

I never said it wasn't relevant but the point you are trying to make is.

What you are saying is that there is no way racism was involved because the jury pool included some black people who didn't respond the the summon.

I just can't believe that you ignore the most obvious fact, that is, the jury selection process. If you didn't overlook the facts your entire argument would fall apart so I guess I can't blame you for trying to prove there is a point to your stupidity.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Getting knocked out does not constitute attempted murder.

I hope you are joking.

I mean I feel like I should respond to such an incredulous statement with one of my own.

What would it take for you to believe that race was a factor when the DA decided what charges to bring up and pursue against these boys? Does he have to be wearing a bed sheet and carrying a burning cross in order to convince you?

I never suggested it did. I'm tired of people trying to defend these thugs by downplaying the injuries of the victim.

 

[mre]

I just can't believe that you ignore the most obvious fact, that is, the jury selection process. If you didn't overlook the facts your entire argument would fall apart so I guess I can't blame you for trying to prove there is a point to your stupidity.

Now you are assuming that they would be able to exclude any potential black jurors from the being on the jury. If the DA tried to do this, then I'm sure the defense attorney would be smiling real big on the inside. Screw the merits of the case, there's no way he would lose on appeal.

 

[lexy]

If you have, then I apologize that I missed it earlier, but answer this: do you want everyone involved in the barn fight to face higher charges?

I don't have enough details of what happened at the barn fight to make that conclusion. I'm of the opinion that the DA should have stepped in with the initial prank therefore mitigating the situation before it got out of hand.

I don't have to imagine this, and I'm curious why you would think that I hold this opinion?

No, I don't assume anything and I agree that it's a red herring issue, but it is one being brought up as an example of Bell not getting a fair trial. The only point that I have made on the jury issue is that it is not logical to complain about an all white jury when the only potential jurors were white, because none of the potential black jurrors answered their summons.

I understand exactly what you are saying but that's not how it works in real life. Period.

 

[lexy]

I never suggested it did. I'm tired of people trying to defend these thugs by downplaying the injuries of the victim.

Why are you defending Barker? He is not the victim in this case if he perpetuated racial tensions among his peers with his actions.

Now you are assuming that they would be able to exclude any potential black jurors from the being on the jury. If the DA tried to do this, then I'm sure the defense attorney would be smiling real big on the inside. Screw the merits of the case, there's no way he would lose on appeal.

Right. It's not an assumption, it's what actually happens during jury selection.

 

[mre]

I don't have enough details of what happened at the barn fight to make that conclusion. I'm of the opinion that the DA should have stepped in with the initial prank therefore mitigating the situation before it got out of hand.

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees with this, though I'm surprised you called it a prank. I certainly wouldn't have used that word. You said that the charges against the six were disproportionately severe, and I replied with this:

To whom are you comparing their charges to? The only student that was arrested because of the barn fight? Keep in mind that he was the only one to face charges, so if you want harsher penalties for him, wouldn't it be fair that everyone involved in that fight face the higher charges? If you're talking about the students that hung the nooses and the student who pulled the shot-gun, then I 100% support their arrests as well.

Which I don't believe you have answered.

Right. It's not an assumption, it's what actually happens during jury selection.

Except you cannot exclude a person from a jury based upon their race. If the DA tried to do this there would be major repercussions.

Why are you defending Barker? He is not the victim in this case if he perpetuated racial tensions among his peers with his actions.

Whoa whoa whoa... are you kidding? He's still a victim here, no matter what he may have said.

 

[Chumly]

Except you cannot exclude a person from a jury based upon their race. If the DA tried to do this there would be major repercussions.

The DA in question has been cleared by U.S. Attorney Donald Washington (hes black since many of you will think hes obviously racist).
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310322

 

[lexy]

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees with this, though I'm surprised you called it a prank. I certainly wouldn't have used that word. You said that the charges against the six were disproportionately severe, and I replied with this:


Which I don't believe you have answered.


Except you cannot exclude a person from a jury based upon their race. If the DA tried to do this there would be major repercussions.


Whoa whoa whoa... are you kidding? He's still a victim here, no matter what he may have said.

I get the feeling that you are going to continue trying to introduce red herrings into the argument until I agree with you.

Except you cannot exclude a person from a jury based upon their race. If the DA tried to do this there would be major repercussions.

Oh wow. Is this a joke? You need to remove the blinders, this is getting ridiculous.

The DA in question has been cleared by U.S. Attorney Donald Washington (hes black since many of you will think hes obviously racist).
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310322

Yes, Chumly every white person is racist. That's exactly what we've been saying.

 

[mre]

I get the feeling that you are going to continue trying to introduce red herrings into the argument until I agree with you.

All right, I'm done arguing. You don't have to agree with me. You said that the six black students received were disproportionately severe, and I simply wanted to know what your measuring stick was. Disproportionately severe as compared to ______? That was my question an hour and a half ago.

Oh wow. Is this a joke? You need to remove the blinders, this is getting ridiculous.

No, it's not a joke. It's called a Batson challenge and it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which I believe the Federal judiciary takes pretty seriously.

 

[lexy]

All right, I'm done arguing. You don't have to agree with me. You said that the six black students received were disproportionately severe, and I simply wanted to know what your measuring stick was. Disproportionately severe as compared to ______? That was my question an hour and a half ago.

No, it's not a joke. It's called a Batson challenge and it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Do you think it is possible that a lawyer may misrepresent the reason why a juror was dismissed in order to increase the chances of a favorable result in a case?

You know what the problem with racism is MRE? It's very hard to prove it when it is happening.

 

[mre]

Do you think it is possible that a lawyer may misrepresent the reason why a juror was dismissed in order to increase the chances of a favorable result in a case?

You know what the problem with racism is MRE? It's very hard to prove it when it is happening.

The condescending attitude is not necessary. Of course it is possible for a lawyer to misrepresent the reason why a juror was dismissed from a case, but good luck convincing an appellate level court that, in a case so racially charged, they had a good reason to dismiss every black juror.

 

[lexy]

The condescending attitude is not necessary. Of course it is possible for a lawyer to misrepresent the reason why a juror was dismissed from a case, but good luck convincing an appellate level court that, in a case so racially charged, they had a good reason to dismiss every black juror.

But that wasn't what happened now is it? I mean you make it sound like black jurors would have made up the majority of the jury had they responded to the summons when, given that the community was more than 80% white, that would never have been the case.

Thanks for playing though, people like you are the reason why racism will always exist in this country. Rather than awknowledge that there is a problem you refuse to accept it and continue believing that such a thing simply does not and can not exist.

 

[mre]

But that wasn't what happened now is it? I mean you make it sound like black jurors would have made up the majority of the jury had they responded to the summons when, given that the community was more than 80% white, that would never have been the case.

Thanks for playing though, people like you are the reason why racism will always exist in this country. Rather than awknowledge that there is a problem you refuse to accept it and continue believing that such a thing simply does not and can not exist.

Of course that's not what happened because no black people answered the jury summons. It is really a simple point to grasp.

You claim that I don't 'acknowledge' racism, but you're wrong. In fact, I've already pointed out several instances in this very case that I feel were racially motivated. Racism is indeed alive and well, but you are trying to find signs of it in the fact that the young man faced a jury composed entirely of whites. There were no racist motives that achieved this because, again, no black people answered the jury summons. Yet you argue that, had a black person answered the summons, they would have automatically been excluded. Even if I were to concede this point, and I don't, it is completely aside from the fact that the only actual, non-hypothetical reason why he faced an entirely white jury is because no black people answered the jury summons.

 

[lexy]

Of course that's not what happened because no black people answered the jury summons. It is really a simple point to grasp.

You claim that I don't 'acknowledge' racism, but you're wrong. Racism is alive and well, but you are trying to find signs of it in the fact that the young man faced a jury composed entirely of whites. There were no racist motives that achieved this because, again, no black people answered the jury summons. Yet you argue that, had a black person answered the summons, they would have automatically been excluded. Even if I were to concede this point, and I don't, it is completely aside from the fact that the only actual, non-hypothetical reason why he faced an entirely white jury is because no black people answered the jury summons.

Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that when you are summoned for jury duty you aren't told what case you are going to be hearing. Sure. Let's ignore the fact that you don't know how many black people were summoned and don't know if they had legitimate reasons why they couldn't be on the jury. Sure, MRE, all that proves that there is no way racism was involved in this case at all. Sure.

 

[mre]

Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that when you are summoned for jury duty you aren't told what case you are going to be hearing. Sure. Let's ignore the fact that you don't know how many black people were summoned and don't know if they had legitimate reasons why they couldn't be on the jury. Sure, MRE, all that proves that there is no way racism was involved in this case at all. Sure.

You are right. But it also doesn't prove that racism resulted in an all white jury. It's two sides to the same coin, you just refuse to flip it over and look at it that way.

Again, let me repeat, racism played a part in many aspects of what happened in Jena, but it did not create an all white jury.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Sure. Let's just ignore the fact that when you are summoned for jury duty you aren't told what case you are going to be hearing. Sure. Let's ignore the fact that you don't know how many black people were summoned and don't know if they had legitimate reasons why they couldn't be on the jury. Sure, MRE, all that proves that there is no way racism was involved in this case at all. Sure.

There is no such thing as a legitimate reason not to answer a jury summons unless you are in a coma or dead. You may have a legitimate reason to refuse to serve jury duty, but you must respond to the summons either in person or in writing. It's a crime to not respond. If you do not respond you are delinquent and face fines and community service.

 

[lexy]

You are right. But it also doesn't prove that racism resulted in an all white jury. It's two sides to the same coin, you just refuse to flip it over and look at it that way.

Again, let me repeat, racism played a part in many aspects of what happened in Jena, but it did not create an all white jury.

Wow, you actually aknowledge that racism exists. Maybe if you last another 6 pages you will start to understand how it might have influenced the filing and nature of these charges as well.

There is no such thing as a legitimate reason not to answer a jury summons unless you are in a coma or dead. You may have a legitimate reason to refuse to serve jury duty, but you must respond to the summons either in person or in writing. It's a crime to not respond. If you do not respond you are delinquent and face fines and community service.

Thanks for the civics lesson. How do you know the people who didn't show up for jury duty didn't do this? Oh that's right, you don't. You are talking out of your ass again Mike.

 

[mre]

Wow, you actually aknowledge that racism exists. Maybe if you last another 6 pages you will start to understand how it might have influenced the filing and nature of these charges as well.

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that I have never claimed that racism had nothing to do with what happened in Jena.

You simply want to apply a racist motive to everything that has occurred.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Thanks for the civics lesson. How do you know the people who didn't show up for jury duty didn't do this? Oh that's right, you don't. You are talking out of your ass again Mike.

We are talking about 66 percent of the people summoned, black, white and other races as well not even responding to the summons. You guys keep telling MRE he's assuming this or that, but you are perfectly OK with the assumption that 100 people summoned of the 150 who could've possibly heard that case were either in a coma, dead, or somehow completely unreachable for the 45 days leading up to the case.

 

[lexy]

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that I have never claimed that racism had nothing to do with what happened in Jena.

You simply want to apply a racist motive to everything that has occurred.

Probably because race does have something to do with this case but you would rather hide your head in the sand pretending not to see it.

We are talking about 66 percent of the people summoned, black, white and other races as well not even responding to the summons. You guys keep telling MRE he's assuming this or that, but you are perfectly OK with the assumption that 100 people summoned of the 150 who could've possibly heard that case were either in a coma, dead, or somehow completely unreachable for the 45 days leading up to the case.

Again, how do you know they didn't have legitimate reasons not to be in the jury?

I'm in school and apparently that's a good enough reason not to show up for jury duty.

 

[mre]

Probably because race does have something to do with this case but you would rather hide your head in the sand pretending not to see it.

Now you're just being impressively obtuse. There are enough racial tensions in Jena without you looking for racism in those places where it doesn't exist, such as in the composition of the jury.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Probably because race does have something to do with this case but you would rather hide your head in the sand pretending not to see it.



Again, how do you know they didn't have legitimate reasons not to be in the jury?

I'm in school and apparently that's a good enough reason not to show up for jury duty.

They may well have had reasons not to be on the jury, but the point you are missing is that they did not respond to the summons at all either in writing or in person according to court record. 100 out of 150 possible jurors in the pool for this case did not answer the summons at all. The court has no idea if they had a legitimate reason to reufse service or not.

Statistically given voter registration and population you'd more likely than not find that 20-30 of those 100 people who did not respond were black and further had everyone responded 2-5 people on the jury including alternates would have been black. You are perfectly happy in your own assumptions, but what MRE is trying to point out here is a plain fact. The jury was entirely white due to the fact that no potential black juror even responded to the summons. Further, I'll even play your game. Every one of the probable 20-30 black jurors in the pool was dead, or in a coma, or in Iraq fighting terrorism. The fact still remains that there were no available black jurors available for the trial, not through some racial motiviation but for the simple fact that every black juror called to serve just simply was not available.

 

[Gio_CoD]

To me, the whole American-racism argument is like the abortion argument. Everyone has their own opinion, and no matter how well you argue your thoughts, you're never going to change someone's mind.

Lexy clearly has a chip on his shoulder, and he's going to remain convinced that the horrible, racist, white bogeyman is out to keep the black man down, no matter how many times you point out that the only people who responded the jury summons were white people. Add to the fact that he's making the automatic assumption that these kids can't get a fair trial just because the jury is white, and you can see his hypocrisy becomes pretty self evident.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Wasn't it reported that one of the jurors was a friend of the victim?

 

[mre]

Wasn't it reported that one of the jurors was a friend of the victim?

Yes! A friend of the victim's father. It boggles my mind that the defense attorney did not challenge his selection as a juror. If he is really as incompetent as he is made out to be, then he needs to be sanctioned and disbarred. Even if Mr. Bell's conviction hadn't been overturned due to his juvenile status, I think he had an excellent appeal on the basis of ineffectual counsel.

EDIT: Let me also say that if the juror was asked if he had any relationships with anybody involved in the case, and he lied, then they should throw the book at him too, though this doesn't seem to be the case as I think it would have been a huge issue in and of itself, and rightfully so.

Mychal Bell was the first of the Jena Six to stand trial for the assault against Barker. A black public defender, Blaine Williams, whose incompetence is only eclipsed by his insensitivity, failed to request a change of venue for the trial and failed to challenge the all-white jury chosen to deliberate the charges. In addition, the jury in question featured a sole male juror, who happened to be a friend and former classmate of Justin Barker’s father, David Barker.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Let me also say that if the juror was asked if he had any relationships with anybody involved in the case, and he lied, then they should throw the book at him too, though this doesn't seem to be the case as I think it would have been a huge issue in and of itself, and rightfully so.

Obviously he did lie because that isn't allowed. If he told the truth than the judge needs to be removed.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

this is a rare case where everyone is wrong.

The white kids
The black kids
The community
The legal system
The protesters

everybody.

 

[aoi tsuki]

To me, the whole American-racism argument is like the abortion argument. Everyone has their own opinion, and no matter how well you argue your thoughts, you're never going to change someone's mind.

i wholeheartedly agree. i think race is even a more difficult subject to discussed because it's so ingrained in the country's psyche.

The inevitable documentaries that come of this will be even more interesting than the issue so far. There's a lot that isn't being said, and lot that isn't being told on both, no, all sides even though this is largely a two-sided issue.

And if someone can point me to some sources where the "Free Jena 6" movement is defined as more than just seeking to free them, i'd appreciate it. i really think "Equal Justice for the Jena 6" or something along those lines would be a better slogan, because the idea of freeing them is polarizing people even more. They should be charged appropriately, as should the white students who hung the nooses and the guy with the shotgun.

 

[mre]

i wholeheartedly agree. i think race is even a more difficult subject to discussed because it's so ingrained in the country's psyche.

The enevitable docimentaries that come of this will be even more interesting than the issue so far. There's a lot that isn't being said, and lot that isn't being told on both, no, all sides even though this is largely a two-sided issue.

And if someone can point me to some sources where the "Free Jena 6" movement is defined as more than just seeking to free them, i'd appreciate it. i really think "Equal Justice for the Jena 6" or something along those lines would be a better slogan, because the idea of freeing them is polarizing people even more. They should be charged appropriately, as should the white students who hung the nooses and the guy with the shotgun.

I hope that this is a statement that everybody could agree on, but who knows...

Obviously he did lie because that isn't allowed. If he told the truth than the judge needs to be removed.

if the juror was asked

I would hope that someone had asked that question, but I'm not sure whose responsibility that would be, if it's the court's responsibility or one of the attorneys.

 

[SonnyBoy]

this is a rare case where everyone is wrong.

The white kids
The black kids
The community
The legal system
The protesters

everybody.

Correct. The difference is in where punishment was handed out and not handed out.

And if someone can point me to some sources where the "Free Jena 6" movement is defined as more than just seeking to free them, i'd appreciate it. i really think "Equal Justice for the Jena 6" or something along those lines would be a better slogan, because the idea of freeing them is polarizing people even more. They should be charged appropriately, as should the white students who hung the nooses and the guy with the shotgun.

Watching CNN, reporters asked Al/Jesse for clarification and they said they just want the kids to be treated equally.

If you can hang nooses and not get in trouble.
If you can brandish a loaded weapon and not get in trouble.
If you can tell kids that you can erase their lives with a stroke of your pen without accountability.
If you can have a jury with friends of the victim on it without accountability.

Why should the kids who stomped another kid get sentenced? Like the poster above said, everyone is in the wrong. So where's the equality?

I would hope that someone had asked that question, but I'm not sure whose responsibility that would be, if it's the court's responsibility or one of the attorneys.

When I went to jury duty, the judge asked questions to weed out who the lawyers would want. Somebody lied or didn't do their job. Again, no accountability.

 

[Andokuky]

Why do people continue to believe no white person has been charged for anything in this? One white kid was put on probation for his role in the group fight that happened after the party incident. No one includes that in their reports and they also misconstrue the incident out to be a group of white kids beating up one black kid. That isn't what happened. In fact it was another fight between one white kid (who wasn't even a student) and a group of black males, and only the white male was charged for the fight. And that led to the convenience store incident in which no one knows what happened for sure that caused the argument but at some point the white kid ran for a gun and the group of black kids wrestled it away and robbed him of it. So yea, they should be charged, and depending on the circumstances with the gun the white kid should be charged too. That's the only problem I see with this whole situation. Everything else is just whiny racial bullshit.

AFAIK the attempted murder charges have been dropped and they will all stand trial as juveniles. So what's the problem? The whole "end your lives with a stroke of my pen" crying is laughable at best as well, it was said at a damn assembly to ALL students yet all reports make it out to seem like the DA went directly to the protest and told the kids protesting that.

What's saddest about it is the first guy everyone has been making a big deal over, has like 3-4 other violent crimes on his record and was well on his way to prison anyway. And this assault happened over 4 months after the white tree incident, why is it even being tied to that in the first place?

I went through a lot of racial tension in high school, I never thought it entitled me to gather up 3-4 friends and go beat the shit out of somebody, why are these people entitled to that?

 

[Sirpopopop]

No, but:



The prosecutor properly amended the charge from attempted murder to a charge which, as you have admitted, is legally sound.

Drag out some Louisiana common law...

As someone in law school, you should certainly know it's a weird state.

(Not really responding to this specific post, but rather the general thrust of most of your posts.)

 

[kazinova]

I give up lexy, you don't understand how to debate, you never will. Saying that someone has no point and calling any argument they have a "red herring" because you don't aggree is insipid.

I never said it wasn't relevant but the point you are trying to make is.

That sentence doesn't say what you mean, the sentence you wrote implies what I said is a relevant. Replace is with isn't.

What you are saying is that there is no way racism was involved because the jury pool included some black people who didn't respond the the summon.

I'm saying this: you don't get to whine about the racist jury when the only people who showed up that day are white. If there had been black people to draw from, maybe, there would be grounds to complain.

Is it possibly, however, that all white people are not, in fact, racist KKK members? You seem to assume all white people in the town of Jena are ignorant white supremecists. Surely, you don't think this.

I just can't believe that you ignore the most obvious fact, that is, the jury selection process.

Here's a prime example of why I think I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old, "You ignore the most important fact, noun". "The jury selection process" is a noun, not a fact.

If you didn't overlook the facts your entire argument would fall apart so I guess I can't blame you for trying to prove there is a point to your stupidity.

You're argument is I overlook the "facts", what you are more likely trying to say is that my argument doesn't involve the same nouns that you use. Here's my problem. You're arguing with everyone is this thread and I don't know what you're fucking arguing for.

Please deliniate exactly what you would like to see happen in Jena, in every case, and what you think the punishments should be. All our arguments are red herrings to you because we're taking stabs in the dark at what we should argue about. Please be more clear.

 

[SonnyBoy]

Nice to see that things are settling down.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/car.nooses/index.html

 

[Tamanon]

I'd just like to say that the person who reported those nooses has an awesome name. Casanova Love.

 

[way more]

To me, the whole American-racism argument is like the abortion argument. Everyone has their own opinion, and no matter how well you argue your thoughts, you're never going to change someone's mind.

I strongly disagree. Racism is a much more academic issue and it is universally despised.

 

[ronito]

I strongly disagree. Racism is a much more academic issue and it is universally despised.

well obviously not universally.

 

[mre]

Drag out some Louisiana common law...

As someone in law school, you should certainly know it's a weird state.

Unless I am waaay off base, most of LA's criminal law has been codified, unlike it's civil law, so while I am, admittedly, largely unfamiliar with LA law, I think the statutes I pulled are relevant.

Plus I have no desire to snoop around West or Lexis and read more cases than I'm required to at the moment. :lol

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Nice to see that things are settling down.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/car.nooses/index.html

smh....

I'd just like to say that the person who reported those nooses has an awesome name. Casanova Love.

Qft. The parents did that person justice.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Unless I am waaay off base, most of LA's criminal law has been codified, unlike it's civil law, so while I am, admittedly, largely unfamiliar with LA law, I think the statutes I pulled are relevant.

Plus I have no desire to snoop around West or Lexis and read more cases than I'm required to at the moment. :lol

Fair enough .

 

[whytemyke]

Shits gettin crazy.


Louisiana law is, correct me if I'm wrong, based still largely on Napoleonic Code, correct? I wonder how that plays into legal matters like this. Because, the thing is, Napoleon was a fucking badass and wouldn't have stood for any of this nonsense. He'd have just made everyone serve in the military and then attack most of Europe, all of which I'm a big fan of. I mean, you have to respect a guy that says "I can make more men die for a ribbon than would die for gold."

 

[mre]

Shits gettin crazy.


Louisiana law is, correct me if I'm wrong, based still largely on Napoleonic Code, correct? I wonder how that plays into legal matters like this. Because, the thing is, Napoleon was a fucking badass and wouldn't have stood for any of this nonsense. He'd have just made everyone serve in the military and then attack most of Europe, all of which I'm a big fan of. I mean, you have to respect a guy that says "I can make more men die for a ribbon than would die for gold."

:lol I think that sums up the situation nicely.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why are you defending Barker? He is not the victim in this case if he perpetuated racial tensions among his peers with his actions.

It's clear you have no understanding of the law, the facts of this case, or common sense. Nothing gives someone the right to jump someone and beat him unconscious, and the court is going to see it that way as well. If they had murdered him over his actions would it be justified as well?

It's a shame the black generation who lived through the civil rights era using peaceful civil disobedience is almost nowhere to be found on this issue. MLK is rolling in his grave

 

[The Frankman]

Now you are assuming that they would be able to exclude any potential black jurors from the being on the jury. If the DA tried to do this, then I'm sure the defense attorney would be smiling real big on the inside. Screw the merits of the case, there's no way he would lose on appeal.

Uh, jury striking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struck_jury

 

[lexy]

I give up lexy, you don't understand how to debate, you never will. Saying that someone has no point and calling any argument they have a "red herring" because you don't aggree is insipid.



That sentence doesn't say what you mean, the sentence you wrote implies what I said is a relevant. Replace is with isn't.



I'm saying this: you don't get to whine about the racist jury when the only people who showed up that day are white. If there had been black people to draw from, maybe, there would be grounds to complain.

Is it possibly, however, that all white people are not, in fact, racist KKK members? You seem to assume all white people in the town of Jena are ignorant white supremecists. Surely, you don't think this.



Here's a prime example of why I think I'm arguing with a twelve-year-old, "You ignore the most important fact, noun". "The jury selection process" is a noun, not a fact.



You're argument is I overlook the "facts", what you are more likely trying to say is that my argument doesn't involve the same nouns that you use. Here's my problem. You're arguing with everyone is this thread and I don't know what you're fucking arguing for.

Please deliniate exactly what you would like to see happen in Jena, in every case, and what you think the punishments should be. All our arguments are red herrings to you because we're taking stabs in the dark at what we should argue about. Please be more clear.

You are stupid. I've already stated exactly what should happen in this case and who should be charged with what. The reason why you "don't know" what my point is, is because you keep focusing on defending a red herring. You keep insisting that there is no way there was racism in this case because there is a possibility that black people could have been included in the jury. This is the focus of your argument. This is an inaccurate way to characterize the nature of the case because the fact is there weren't any black people on the jury. Saying that because there could have been black jurors validates the verdict is not the point because the point I've been making is that these 6 should have never been up against such harsh charges for the incident in the first place.

Lexy clearly has a chip on his shoulder, and he's going to remain convinced that the horrible, racist, white bogeyman is out to keep the black man down, no matter how many times you point out that the only people who responded the jury summons were white people. Add to the fact that he's making the automatic assumption that these kids can't get a fair trial just because the jury is white, and you can see his hypocrisy becomes pretty self evident.

It's "she" dumbass.

The fact that only white people responded to the jury summons does not validate the nature of the charges.

They may well have had reasons not to be on the jury, but the point you are missing is that they did not respond to the summons at all either in writing or in person according to court record. 100 out of 150 possible jurors in the pool for this case did not answer the summons at all. The court has no idea if they had a legitimate reason to reufse service or not.

Statistically given voter registration and population you'd more likely than not find that 20-30 of those 100 people who did not respond were black and further had everyone responded 2-5 people on the jury including alternates would have been black. You are perfectly happy in your own assumptions, but what MRE is trying to point out here is a plain fact. The jury was entirely white due to the fact that no potential black juror even responded to the summons. Further, I'll even play your game. Every one of the probable 20-30 black jurors in the pool was dead, or in a coma, or in Iraq fighting terrorism. The fact still remains that there were no available black jurors available for the trial, not through some racial motiviation but for the simple fact that every black juror called to serve just simply was not available.

You have no evidence of this.

It's clear you have no understanding of the law, the facts of this case, or common sense. Nothing gives someone the right to jump someone and beat him unconscious, and the court is going to see it that way as well. If they had murdered him over his actions would it be justified as well?

It's a shame the black generation who lived through the civil rights era using peaceful civil disobedience is almost nowhere to be found on this issue. MLK is rolling in his grave

This response doesn't really say anything at all.

I haven't been arguing that they should get off with no punishment, the point is that the punishment is too harsh and the DA is behaving in a vindictive manner not unlike Michael Nifong. I have a clear understanding of the law and how the law can be manipulated to get the results you want given the right set of circumstances.

And who are you to make any claims about what MLK would think?

Now you're just being impressively obtuse. There are enough racial tensions in Jena without you looking for racism in those places where it doesn't exist, such as in the composition of the jury.

The fact is that the jury was all white, regardless of whether the original pool included black people or not. I can't say with any certainty that had a black person been on the jury, despite the level of improbability of that actually happening, that the case would have turned out any different but the fact is that the jury was all white. The evidence against the Jena 6 is not as strong as you seem to think it is and the whole point about the jury is that, given the nature of the case, the standard of evidence required to get a conviction on aggravated second degree battery charges is not that high. All the DA has to prove is "battery committed with a dangerous weapon" (a fist or a foot can be considered a dangerous weapon) and "intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury" (a concussion is consdered serious bodily injury).

You claim to have an understanding of how the law works yet you consistently fail to understand this.

 

[Learn2read]

I'm unsure of this whole "beaten half to death thing" considering the guy attended a class-ring ceremony later that evening.

 

[DY_nasty]

I don't want to sound like an asshole, but when is an assbeating worth more than 3 years? The kid got knocked the fuck out but was still able to go about everyday life, he even got his ring that evening right?

Back in high school - I got into fights all the time, saw a TON of fights growing up and it just seems odd that anything that doesn't involve a weapon should require police to get involved in. Maybe thats what a lot of people here on GAF call "insensitive" or "barbaric" but for a lot of people its everyday stuff. The school didn't do shit about it at the time, which probably means that even more things involving even more people has been going on around there for years now. "Kids just being kids" is a pretty strong statement if said in the right context.