The main stream media is not covering the planning of these events.If you want to know what the movement is doing you have to keep up with black radio.The Power on XM radio is a good place to start. Channel 169. There will be more. WE are awake.
I wasn't aware of this with enough notice to attend. But this isn't about the race of the protesters, it's about the (in)action of the Civil Rights division of the Dept. Of Justice. Watch out, the Jena 6 issue is a uniter, not a divider (in other words, the number of Americans who actually support 'nooses in trees' is tiny, thankfully, regardless of the demographics pictured here) Peace
It saddens me that there aren't more white faces out there...or, for that matter, latino, asian, and middle eastern. Why is it that so many sanfransisco liberals can make the journey for a war protest, but not for civil rights on our own soil? This is not a black issue, it's a human issue, and all of humanity should stand up for the rights of black america, and, by extension, the rights of ALL people.
I was really sorry to have missed this. I had no inkling that it was planned. I usually get notices of anti-war protests, but I got nothing about this. I would have been there if I knew about it. Glad to see that it was such a big crowd.
Explain to me in what way assault and battery is attempted murder. No weapons besides a shoe were used and no obvious attempts to strangle the victim were made. This would indicate that the Jena Six, where acting violently and inappropriately, had no intention of killing the victim. Also, there were threats made against them with firearms before this incident, yet no arrests were made. This case bears the distinct odor of racism.
Now what would you say if it was the other way around and it was white kids beating on a black kid? ya that's what I thought, this was a hate crime and as far as I am concerned each one of the jena 6 should get 10-20 years in prison.
A crime is only considered a hate crime if the motivation for its commission was race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. The distinction in this case is that two factions were antagonising one another, this 'came to a head' in the assault incident, but it was in no way a crime motivated solely by ethnicity; it was a crime motivated by a rivalry in which the white faction has not been prosecuted despite the commission of multiple felonies.
The headline was "Black kids beat up white kid," but the story is always much more complex than the headline. The victim had been involved with a group of other white students who had a rivalry with a particular group of black students. The white students committed verbal assault, hung nooses from a tree outside the school which could be considered a felony threat of violence, and accosted one black student with a firearm. I would argue that the perpetrators were provoked by harassment, not race
The event in question was set in motion by the placement of nooses on the tree; that's a part of the story that's recorded in virtually every source on the subject. Other sources indicate other specific incidents in which the white faction was provoking escalation of racial rivalry. This is a far cry from an unmotivated hate crime. Do some research.
I have and I am tired of shit heads like you telling me to "do some research" when you only research a part of the subject to reinforce your stupid beliefs and then think you have justification to spread propaganda, honestly go fuck yourself.
I've done my best to read credible accounts of this story such as attorney interviews and reviewing what few court documents are available. I'm in the early stages of legal studies, so i take this stuff VERY seriously. You're alleging that the victim was attacked for his skin colour alone when multiple accounts describe him as involved with a faction that habitually harassed a specific group of blacks. You will think as you will, but i'm not just quoting daily kos. My opinion is well informed.
I read 'credible accounts' which shed serious doubt on the motive being solely race. This wasn't some random incident like kids throwing rocks through a kosher butcher's window, this was a targeted attack which specifically pinpointed a person with whom the perpetrators had genuine motive beyond race. I'm not saying what they did was right, i'm saying it's more complicated than you seem willing to recognise.
The implication you seem to be trying to make is that reading any source which sympathises with or clarifies the case for the defense is automatically discredited by the very fact that someone would consider defending an act which you've already made a decisive prejudgement on. The answer is yes, i have read accounts which sympathise with and clarify the case for the defense, but only reading one client's case in a legal matter is like having only one mental eye open: No depth perception.
Want to know what I think? I think the jena six made up the whole gun threat to look innocent and everything ells, and then play the race card so people would believe him.
Preconceived notions are beyond reproach because they cannot be changed by anything but a change of heart within the conceiver. You've already made up your mind, so debating this issue with you is like debating the value of Saxons with William the conquerer.
"I've done my best to read credible accounts of this story such as attorney interviews and reviewing what few court documents are available"
If you've really done that, then you knwo darn well that every legal analysis of it doens't even mention the nooses. The nooses were NEVER mentioned in court proceedings until there was a motion to recuse Walters. It was purely a media phenomenon.
"The event in question was set in motion by the placement of nooses on the tree; that's a part of the story that's recorded in virtually every source on the subject"
No. This is totally wrong. The only source of that was an essay by Allan Bean which numerous "news" sources repeated without following up on. The nooses were over 3 months earlier and had nothing to do with this. Some of the attackers had violent records well before that even happened.
"The white students committed verbal assault, hung nooses from a tree outside the school which could be considered a felony threat of violence, and accosted one black student with a firearm"
Again, the nooses were months before the assault. It was not right, but it doesn't explain their prior violent records.
And I am curious what "gun" incident you are talking about. Bell filing a claim a few months ago about someone showing him a shot gun, or the guy who was attacked at the Gotta Go?
Read LA vs Munoz. There is your precedent for tennis shoes as a weapon in Aggravated Assault cases.
"Also, there were threats made against them with firearms before this incident, yet no arrests were made."
If you are talking about Mychal Bell's claim, why was this claim not made in any legal form until a year after the intial assault? If you are talking abotu the Gotta Go incident., the black kids were clearly the aggressors and Bailey admitted as much in his witness statement.
dats me da kid wit da grey hat and stick
TheNeefy 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheNeefy 2 years ago
where was the protest when six violent offenders committed a hate crime?? soon it will be a hate crime to offend black people. its coming.
ncmoonshine 4 years ago
Its a beautiful thing to see my people together.
ThevoiceoGod 4 years ago
The main stream media is not covering the planning of these events.If you want to know what the movement is doing you have to keep up with black radio.The Power on XM radio is a good place to start. Channel 169. There will be more. WE are awake.
owndrum 4 years ago
I wasn't aware of this with enough notice to attend. But this isn't about the race of the protesters, it's about the (in)action of the Civil Rights division of the Dept. Of Justice. Watch out, the Jena 6 issue is a uniter, not a divider (in other words, the number of Americans who actually support 'nooses in trees' is tiny, thankfully, regardless of the demographics pictured here) Peace
vondelpark420 4 years ago
It saddens me that there aren't more white faces out there...or, for that matter, latino, asian, and middle eastern. Why is it that so many sanfransisco liberals can make the journey for a war protest, but not for civil rights on our own soil? This is not a black issue, it's a human issue, and all of humanity should stand up for the rights of black america, and, by extension, the rights of ALL people.
DamNationDiplomat 4 years ago
I was really sorry to have missed this. I had no inkling that it was planned. I usually get notices of anti-war protests, but I got nothing about this. I would have been there if I knew about it. Glad to see that it was such a big crowd.
salome2114 4 years ago
The Jena Six got what they deserve.
man95000 3 years ago
Explain to me in what way assault and battery is attempted murder. No weapons besides a shoe were used and no obvious attempts to strangle the victim were made. This would indicate that the Jena Six, where acting violently and inappropriately, had no intention of killing the victim. Also, there were threats made against them with firearms before this incident, yet no arrests were made. This case bears the distinct odor of racism.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
They used a weapon, it was a hate crime.
Now what would you say if it was the other way around and it was white kids beating on a black kid? ya that's what I thought, this was a hate crime and as far as I am concerned each one of the jena 6 should get 10-20 years in prison.
man95000 3 years ago
A crime is only considered a hate crime if the motivation for its commission was race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. The distinction in this case is that two factions were antagonising one another, this 'came to a head' in the assault incident, but it was in no way a crime motivated solely by ethnicity; it was a crime motivated by a rivalry in which the white faction has not been prosecuted despite the commission of multiple felonies.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
The motivation for the crime was race.
man95000 3 years ago
The headline was "Black kids beat up white kid," but the story is always much more complex than the headline. The victim had been involved with a group of other white students who had a rivalry with a particular group of black students. The white students committed verbal assault, hung nooses from a tree outside the school which could be considered a felony threat of violence, and accosted one black student with a firearm. I would argue that the perpetrators were provoked by harassment, not race
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
I don't believe that.
man95000 3 years ago
The event in question was set in motion by the placement of nooses on the tree; that's a part of the story that's recorded in virtually every source on the subject. Other sources indicate other specific incidents in which the white faction was provoking escalation of racial rivalry. This is a far cry from an unmotivated hate crime. Do some research.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
I have and I am tired of shit heads like you telling me to "do some research" when you only research a part of the subject to reinforce your stupid beliefs and then think you have justification to spread propaganda, honestly go fuck yourself.
man95000 3 years ago
I've done my best to read credible accounts of this story such as attorney interviews and reviewing what few court documents are available. I'm in the early stages of legal studies, so i take this stuff VERY seriously. You're alleging that the victim was attacked for his skin colour alone when multiple accounts describe him as involved with a faction that habitually harassed a specific group of blacks. You will think as you will, but i'm not just quoting daily kos. My opinion is well informed.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
You read "credible accounts" from people defending the racists that beat this kid?
man95000 3 years ago
I read 'credible accounts' which shed serious doubt on the motive being solely race. This wasn't some random incident like kids throwing rocks through a kosher butcher's window, this was a targeted attack which specifically pinpointed a person with whom the perpetrators had genuine motive beyond race. I'm not saying what they did was right, i'm saying it's more complicated than you seem willing to recognise.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
Answer the question, did you read the "credible accounts" from the people that are defending the racists who beat up this kid?
man95000 3 years ago
The implication you seem to be trying to make is that reading any source which sympathises with or clarifies the case for the defense is automatically discredited by the very fact that someone would consider defending an act which you've already made a decisive prejudgement on. The answer is yes, i have read accounts which sympathise with and clarify the case for the defense, but only reading one client's case in a legal matter is like having only one mental eye open: No depth perception.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
Want to know what I think? I think the jena six made up the whole gun threat to look innocent and everything ells, and then play the race card so people would believe him.
man95000 3 years ago
Preconceived notions are beyond reproach because they cannot be changed by anything but a change of heart within the conceiver. You've already made up your mind, so debating this issue with you is like debating the value of Saxons with William the conquerer.
DamNationDiplomat 3 years ago
"I've done my best to read credible accounts of this story such as attorney interviews and reviewing what few court documents are available"
If you've really done that, then you knwo darn well that every legal analysis of it doens't even mention the nooses. The nooses were NEVER mentioned in court proceedings until there was a motion to recuse Walters. It was purely a media phenomenon.
virtualdynamo 3 years ago
"The event in question was set in motion by the placement of nooses on the tree; that's a part of the story that's recorded in virtually every source on the subject"
No. This is totally wrong. The only source of that was an essay by Allan Bean which numerous "news" sources repeated without following up on. The nooses were over 3 months earlier and had nothing to do with this. Some of the attackers had violent records well before that even happened.
virtualdynamo 3 years ago
"The white students committed verbal assault, hung nooses from a tree outside the school which could be considered a felony threat of violence, and accosted one black student with a firearm"
Again, the nooses were months before the assault. It was not right, but it doesn't explain their prior violent records.
And I am curious what "gun" incident you are talking about. Bell filing a claim a few months ago about someone showing him a shot gun, or the guy who was attacked at the Gotta Go?
virtualdynamo 3 years ago
Read LA vs Munoz. There is your precedent for tennis shoes as a weapon in Aggravated Assault cases.
"Also, there were threats made against them with firearms before this incident, yet no arrests were made."
If you are talking about Mychal Bell's claim, why was this claim not made in any legal form until a year after the intial assault? If you are talking abotu the Gotta Go incident., the black kids were clearly the aggressors and Bailey admitted as much in his witness statement.
virtualdynamo 3 years ago