The notorious Jena case Update: Bail denied
posted at 11:18 am on September 21, 2007 by Bryan
The Reverends Al and Jesse have once again parachuted into a small town to throw their weight around and relive the glory days of the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps we’ll one day get to the point where the two reverends have become so radioactive that no one will look to them for any answers on any issue, but we’re not yet at that day. The MSM still treats them as credible, though one has blood on his hands and the other is a reverend in name only who has never led a church or even held down a real job. In a just world, the two reverends from the North would be mentioned alongside Louisiana’s own David Duke among the nation’s most notorious racists. Though northern white liberals would have us all think that racism is exclusively white and exclusively Southern, it’s neither.
But back to our story. This time, it’s Jena, Louisiana, which is currently embroiled in a case that is being compared to the Duke rape case, but in reverse: Six young black men stand accused of attempted murder for beating a young white man over an incident at the “white tree.”
The New York Times reports the sequence of events as follows.
They called it the White Tree. Not because of the color of its leaves or tint of its bark, but because of the kind of people who typically sat beneath its shade here at Jena High School.
And when a black student tried to defy that tradition by sitting under the tree last September, it set off a series of events that have turned this town of 3,000 in central Louisiana’s timber country into a flashpoint over the issue of racial bias in the criminal justice system.
Three nooses quickly appeared on the tree a day after the black student sat under it, and not long afterward, the authorities said a white student had been beaten by six black schoolmates. The white student was treated at a local hospital and released; the black students were charged, not with assault, but with attempted murder.
Wikipedia (with appropriate accuracy warning) has a useful timeline.
Racial tensions resurfaced in Jena on September 1, 2006, when hangman’s nooses were discovered in an oak tree on the campus of Jena High School after a black student had asked the vice principal if he and some friends could sit under the tree, where white students had typically congregated. The school administration recommended that the noose-hangers be expelled. The elected La Salle Parish School Board overruled the school, he and the three white student perpetrators received in-school suspension.[4][5][6] On November 30, 2006, an arson fire destroyed the main academic building at the school. On December 4, a fight broke out on campus, after which six African-American students, later dubbed the Jena 6,[7] were arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder.
The black kid who sat under the tree showed courage; the noose hangers showed that racism is unfortunately alive and well.
But there were three months between the nooses and the attacks. There are claims that the intervening months were tense between black and white factions. That’s probably true. What’s less clear is the connection between the nooses and the attack. More on that below.
Attempted murder does look like an extreme charge to level at the six, since the victim was treated and released for his injuries on the day of the attack. If the six had wanted to murder the victim, numbers were definitely on their side. What the Times doesn’t report, though, is how the attack occurred or ended. Did the six fight the one after an argument, and did they get run off by some third parties in the middle of the attack, or did they plot the attack and slip up on the victim? Well, evidently it was the latter, according to Jason Whitlock.
There was no “schoolyard fight” as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree.
Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.
I’m no lawyer, but if Whitlock’s account is accurate, that’s at least aggravated assault. If the attack was broken up by third parties in a way that prevented further injury to Barker, then yes, attempted murder would be among the reasonable charges the assailants could expect to face.
This gives us one important distinction between Jena and the Duke case: In Jena, the accused actually did something illegal. The only question is whether they’re facing reasonable or extreme charges, and if the charges are extreme, why that would be the case. The prosecutors seem to have answered that themselves when they scaled the charges back to aggravated battery and conspiracy. The conspiracy part goes to the overall charges’ seriousness, though, indicating premeditation as opposed to a schoolyard fight.
Whitlock goes on to describe how the case arrived at the point where the Jena Six faced such serious charges.
A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder.
Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black.
It’s almost never mentioned that Bell’s absentee father returned from Dallas and re-entered his son’s life only after Bell faced attempted-murder charges. At a bond hearing in August, Bell’s father and a parade of local ministers promised a judge that they would supervise Bell if he was released from prison.
So it’s not as cut and dried as the reverends would have the world think. Go figure. Jena is a chance for them to get back in the spotlight and be relevant again. Jesse and Al need cases like Jena.
Now, am I saying that there isn’t racial injustice in America today? No. Of course there is. But again, let’s look at the Duke comparison to understand how things are today. Yes, a black man faces more scrutiny on average than a white man. But it’s also a fact that black men commit a disproportionate share of crime. And it’s also true that an ambitious white DA can and did charge white men with a crime that they didn’t commit in order to curry favor with the same two reverends who have descended on Jena, among others, and those reverends convicted the Duke players in the court of public opinion before the case could even get to trial (which, thanks to the flimsiness of the evidence, it never got to). Those same reverends haven’t apologized for rushing to judgment against the Duke lacrosse players. They won’t apologize for making a crusade out of Jena either, even while they ignore inconvenient facts to make their case.
As things stand now, the one of the six who was convicted on the most serious charges, star athlete Mychal Bell, has had his conviction thrown out because he was tried as an adult though he was a juvenile at the time of the attack. He may be re-tried in juvenile court. That’s where he should have been tried to begin with.
By the way, Jason Whitlock, upon whose reporting I have based much of this post, is black.
(h/t on Jason Whitlock’s column to the boss.)
Update: Reader Michael sent me a link to another great Jason Whitlock column on Jena. It’s too good to excerpt, so read the whole thing.
Update: Mychal Bell’s bail has been denied. And some idiot white teenagers from Alexandria, LA have been arrested for drunk driving and inciting a riot after driving past a crowd of people from yesterday’s march in Jena with a pair of nooses hanging from the back of their pick-up. The younger of those two claims to be involved with the KKK. A local cop summed up their arrest nicely.
“I wish we had a charge in Louisiana for aggravated ignorance, because this is a classic case,” [Police Sgt. Clifford] Gatlin said.
At the very least.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
You have got to be kidding. Name one instance in which the Congressinal Black Caucus committed a crime of any sort. As for the gentle lambs of the KKK neutered by social icons such as yourself try again.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=789 tells about some klan activity and the map that tracks hate groups on the homepage (yes even black separatists for you JWS) you can see that there are still far too many hate groups, including the klan.
Bradky on September 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM
What sources did you get the percentages from?
According to the DOJ and FBI I found
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable1.htm
Shows that there were twice as many hate crimes committed against blacks than whites – but over 1,000 cases of hate crimes against whites were reported. Blacks make up roughly 15% of the population but have twice as many hate crimes committed against them as whites who make up more than 50% of the population. It also dispels the notion that hate crimes against whites are never reported.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2005 —
• 86% of white victims were killed by whites
• 94% of black victims were killed by blacks
Bradky on September 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Let’s beat up the white boy. That will let everyone know that we are for civil rights.
saved on September 22, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Crime is crime, regardless of the color of the perpetrators or victim. This case disturbs me for very personal reasons – in 1994, my parents and I were in our living room watching TV when we heard something hit the garage door. Knowing my brother was out there shooting hoops and had a tendency to bounce the ball against the garage door. Only it wasn’t the ball hitting the door – it was my brother. The “friends” he was playing with knocked him down and beat him nearly to death (supposedly, a gang initiation for one of the perps), one or more of them stomping on his head as he lay on the ground. He didn’t walk out of the hospital in a few hours – he spent a week there, recovering from a fractured skull and brain surgery. Actually it was a miracle he made it to the hospital alive, according to a friend of mine who worked with the police – he’d been listening to the emergency frequencies that night, not realizing who the victim was they were talking about.
All of the perps were caught (some of them yanked out of school the next day) thanks to the girlfriend of one of our neighbors who had been walking with her baby across the street and witnessed the entire attack. The fact that my brother is white and the perps black didn’t factor into the case at all – nor should it have. All the cases were eventually pled down to lesser charges, even those which had been referred to adult court. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn’t come organize marches in our small town. The parents of the perps let the law handle it – the mother of the ringleader of the attack even came to our house in tears and apologized to my mother without making excuses for what her son did. No crying about how they were the victims because they were black.
Nooses or not, racial tensions or not, NOTHING excuses what the Jena 6 did. They should stand up, accept responsibility and take their punishment.
Alia on September 22, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Bradky: I was using numbers I found on combined violent crime (which is what we are dealing with here – assault) not just hate crime or murders. Hate crime and murders are only a very small part of violent crime which includes assaults, robberies, rapes, etc. Nothing I saw disputes any of the info you posted above.
As to my sources, I started with two links from earlier commentors in this thread (I don’t have the time or inclination to read back through and find them but they’re up there if you care to look) and then started googling from there for comparisons.
Scooter: I worded my comment badly and stand corrected as to my unintended implication.
deepdiver on September 22, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Sorry, that should have been “Knowing my brother was out there shooting hoops and had a tendency to bounce the ball against the garage door, my dad yelled out the window for them to stop throwing the ball against the garage door.”
Alia on September 22, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I did read the whole thread. You all are tops for a hearty debate. I decided debating would do little to actually protect me from the bad stuff going on. This summer I’ve been spending more time here.
Buck Turgidson on September 22, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I think you are citing smoke and mirrors.You said
From
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1994/06/01/88911/index.htm
comes a very different claim than what you make. The statistics come from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, much more reliable than “some link I can’t remember”
For example, of the 5.1 million violent crimes with white victims in 1992, the perpetrator was white 66% of the time and black only 21%. And in the 1.1 million crimes with black victims, the criminal was black 86% of the time and white 7%.
THE FACTS While the largest segment of poll respondents — 31% — correctly identified black male teens as the most likely victims, they didn’t have a clue about the risk other groups face. They greatly underestimated the threat to young black girls, for instance, and overestimated the likelihood of crime against young adult white women. When we asked people to name the group in greatest danger, black teenage girls ranked only sixth; actually, those girls are the second most likely to be victimized, following black male teens, out of 16 demographic groups we tracked (see the chart above). White women ages 20 to 34 were the third most popular choice, though these women actually rank ninth. Whites were the main source of that error, by the way. Some 11% of them named young white women as a high-risk group, vs. only 1.5% of blacks. Our poll respondents were also off the mark in identifying the least likely victims. Only 7% chose the correct answer: white women 65 and over, whose victimization rate of roughly one per 1,000 makes them easily the safest of all. One reason: They’re far more careful than younger people about avoiding dangerous situations. The group that our poll identified as safest — white men ages 35 to 64 – are nearly eight times more likely to be attacked than elderly white women. Such confusion isn’t surprising. Criminologists point out that the most atypical crimes — such as vicious attacks on young suburban mothers or defenseless older women — tend to make news. Bombarded by splashy press and TV images of these unusual victims, the public naturally gets false ideas about who is actually most often at risk.
Bradky on September 22, 2007 at 12:28 PM
To designate a crime as a hate crime is, imo, unconstitutional. A crime is a crime.
Connie on September 22, 2007 at 12:28 PM
No disagreement Connie, but until that changes the government will track the numbers. Point was that contrary to popular belief hate crimes against whites do occur and are reported.
Bradky on September 22, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I didn’t go to the link. I noticed it was from 2004. I’ll bet reports of black on white crime have gone up even more since then. I have mixed feelings about the trend. Crimes need to be reported and no one should tolerate any crime, but tension over just about everything is growing in this country. That worries me a lot.
Connie on September 22, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Here:
PRCalDude on September 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Applying a hate crime charge is entirely up to the prosecutor. How many prosecutors do you know of that would do that?
PRCalDude on September 22, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Drat. Should read, “how many prosecutors do you know that would apply a hate crime charge to the black perpetrator of a white victim?”
PRCalDude on September 22, 2007 at 1:43 PM
The congressional black caucus is another example of blacks contempt for “Whitey” and America. You’re elected to a high office by people of all races, and you then, in the name of fighting racism of course, join a club that allows membership ONLY if you are black? So I, as a “whitey”, would want to vote for a black candidate because?
JWS on September 22, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Update: Mychal Bell’s bail has been denied. And some idiot white teenagers from Alexandria, LA have been arrested for drunk driving and inciting a riot after driving past a crowd of people from yesterday’s march in Jena with a pair of nooses hanging from the back of their pick-up.
by Bryan
Lock up those freaks and throw the effing key away…
JWS on September 22, 2007 at 2:04 PM
and the better question, how many of those hate crimes were against White GAY folks? Bet its a very significant proportion.
Especialy considering most of the “hate crime” laws revolve around protected subclasses…
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Hate crimes, the idea that some victims are more important in the eyes of the law than others.
Very dangerous.
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 2:21 PM
You could probably join even though you are white. But you would have to be a congressman. That won’t stop you from joining the NAACP though!
scooter on September 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Just a little one question quiz here. No iPod’s or any other prizes though, sorry.
What “racist” said this?
“I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.”
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Hate crimes, the idea that some victims are more important in the eyes of the law than others.
Very dangerous.
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 2:21 PM
You have read George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” I perceive.
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Ha ha ha…….Jesse Jackson………….
doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Actualy I believe that a white Representative tried to join a year or so ago, and was turned down…
He wanted to help represent the large portion of his constituents who were black…
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 4:16 PM
High time for a Euro-American Caucus.
PRCalDude on September 22, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 4:16 PM
You beat me to it…
That won’t stop you from joining the NAACP though!
scooter on September 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Cool, I’m in! When’s the next meeting?
JWS on September 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Nope… what stops me is the whole “Color” thing… I guess I am a color… usualy kinda tan… sometimes Red when I burn…
Won’t catch me the The Race either (La Raza).
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 5:16 PM
True.
baldilocks on September 22, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Bullcrap..I disagree, I am a jew and I get the “nooses wild”, the burning crosses and hate speech, I understand all of it. The same applies to the reverse psychology on racism, that one is racist if they question understanding how it makes a victim feel or even introduce it into the conversation.
I don’t buy it, call me crazy bit I’ve been on the receiving end of a few choice adjectives to describe jews. I get it, and I do not consider myself capable of the same behavior toward another.
Why were these kids even allowed to hang the nooses – is this another twisted attempt at free speech and again, where were their parents, why did they allow it, why were they not punished by their parents??
I mean they really didn’t believe this behavior was acceptable, did they?
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Let’s see… which would I rather have done to me?
Some moron hang nooses in a tree or have six guys stomp the crap out of me? Hard to decide. How many nooses would that be and will blood be running out of my ears?
Oh!! no blood running out of my ears…well then by all means stomp the hell out of me. That would be a whole lot better than looking at those painful nooses!
coldshot on September 22, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Then it’s settled, regardless of their color; us Black folks don’t take too kindly to nooses.
Zaire67 on September 22, 2007 at 6:58 PM
After reading all the posts, i felt the need to sing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAEauAKaed8
Zaire67 on September 22, 2007 at 7:12 PM
But can you please answer the million dollar question – what is/was the purpose of the nooses?
Why hang them in the first place?? I mean if I sat under the tree and the next day there were swatistas hanging, I may take some issue with it….
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Even lampshades may bother me….
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 7:43 PM
I am assuming the nosse hangers are democrats, correct?
I am hoping they are not members of the Party Of Lincoln….
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM
It’s perfectly fine for you take issue with or be bothered by something.
It’s something else entirely different for you and five of your buddies to gang stomp someone, regardless of whether your feelings were hurt or not.
coldshot on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM
I agree, but again, why would they allow their kids to hang nooses in a tree? Clearly if the nooses were not hung it would not escalated. What kind of parents are these, low-end Democrats?
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Please do not tell me they are Republicans…I’m begging you.
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 8:06 PM
If these people are hanging nooses in a “white tree”, of all ridiculous things, in 2007, they would probably want to show me to the nearest shower or make a lampshade out of me, quite frankly.
I’m sorry, I find it disturbing and hateful, all in one fell swoop.
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM
If it would have been jewish kids instead of black kids our parents would have called the white kids parents and demeanded an explaination followed by an apology.
They also would have deemed it a hate crime, and I am sure Debbie Schlussel would agree with me on that one.
She’s the first one to yell anti-semitism in a crowded theater.
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Yes, you do sound disturbed.
coldshot on September 22, 2007 at 8:20 PM
You are assuming that anyone allowed them to hang those nooses. Nobody allowed it to happen, the kids didn’t get permission slips sighed by their parents saying it was ok for them to hang nooses from the white tree.
This whole issue of nooses is a diversion from the real issue. The real issue is that a violent predatory member of Jena’s community managed to involve five other kid’s in a assault on another member of the community. An assault that should have been charged as attempted murder and as a federal hate crime. Had the races of the perpetrators and the victim been reversed that is how it would have been prosecuted.
doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Hey everyone – Saving Private Ryan is on TNT – my favorite film, the beginning is the best part….they are kicking ass and then some…..
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 8:22 PM
One person here advocates for separate (but presumably equal) schools. Another suggests ignoring blacks altogether.
Like it or not, Republicans have a race problem. It’s not enough to blame Democrats or race-hustling reverands for this chasm of common ground.
Many Republicans have adopted a mantra similar to that which they so vehemently despise – I’m a victim. All this reverse-whining is getting old.
Here’s the deal. Lot’s of Republicans are racist. Many others are racial separatists. Same can be said for Blacks, Democrats, Hispanics, etc. Republicans, however, are the least sympathetic of each of these groups. As long as we embrace racists and racialists, we (Republicans) will be branded similarly.
We need to lead by example. Racially righteous behavior speaks for itself. It does not require us to remind the world that we are the party of Lincoln. As long as we protect the racists in our midst, we will be seen in their dim lighting.
The Jena 6 deserve equal justice – no greater, no less than any other American. The Deep South is the last place this will happen. The media is the second to last place. Both arenas increase the chance for partial and unfair juries.
People trying to take sides (nearly every commenter herein) on this issue miss the point. We should not be rooting for or against anyone based on race or on the perceived political victory. We should be fiercely advocating for fairness. We should pray that our justice system is able to decipher the confusing social cues and find truth/justice.
The Race Card on September 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM
As long as we embrace racists and racialists, we (Republicans) will be branded similarly.
The Race Card on September 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Who embraces racists? Why on earth is it racist to say enough! It’s 2007, slavery has been abolished and although, in my opinion, it marked the lowest point we as a country have managed to reach, White people ended it! As a bonus question, guess which party, who blacks vote for to this day almost en mass, did NOT want to end it? That’s right, the Dhimmis!.
blacks were deprived of simple, civil rights. Separate drinking fountains? WTF? Absurd. But again, although it was marked with disgusting incidents, we FIXED it.
Fast forward. Years and years of affirmative action, quota’s, million dollar athelets, black doctors and lawyers, congressmen and women, etc, and the result? “The Jena 6″. Cool name…
That’s why I have had enough. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. blacks have been given the keys to the candy store and it’s never enough and it never will be. They see themselves as permanent victims; I see them as free to reap what they sow, as are we all. This country is amazing and has done all it can do. Since it will never be enough, I say enjoy your rap, black colleges and caucuses (cauci?), enjoy Al and Jesse, “rally” and “gather”, beat and stomp, etc. You’ll excuse me if I don’t join in, right?
JWS on September 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Of all your syllogisms and anecdotes, I am most compelled by your spelling of the word athlete. You misspelled it twice: afleets and athelets.
I lost my decoder ring, so I will have to use plain-old logic to decipher your passive aggression.
(3 seconds later)
OK. I got it. You are a _____________________.
***
Look, racially-fueled frustration can be a very bitter pill. Nobody likes to be challenged or marginalized because of their race. So, I feel your pain. It cannot be easy being white male nowadays.
Imagine how pissed your descendents will be if they have to deal with this BS 400 years from now.
The Race Card on September 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM
The movie is over and I am in tears, again. The scene at the end with his family at Tom Hanks’ character’s grave is really too much, it makes me shed tears everytime. Anyway, back to the subject –
No one has answered my questions:
Why did the parents of the noose hangers allow it?
How did they handle their offspring doing this, did they condone it?
Were they pissed at their children for such instigating – atir the racial caldron behavior?
I mean what kind of parents spawn this kind of behavior anyway?
You know in the movie when Vin Deisel’s character hands Adam Goldman’s character – Private Stanley Mellish – the Nazi youth knife and he cries and recites a prayer, I was thinking of this post and how some posters here believe hanging the nooses was sort of ok.
It would have been more responsible not to hang the nooses and by doing so they were looking for trouble, and they found it.
Unfortunately we live in a society where some people’s interpretation of an eye for an eye can be a bit skewed, so probably best not to open the dirty can of worms from the get go.
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Oh please, we should all be so lucky to be white males – the most protected class in America, no – excuse me – on earth.
That’s a risdiculous statement and occassionally I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly and the fringe loon Michael Savage push that premise and it’s unfounded and utterly ridiculous.
I mean what’s next – NOM?
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I lost my decoder ring, so I will have to use plain-old logic to decipher your passive aggression.
The Race Card on September 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Passive aggression? Lol. It’s not PA, it’s making fun of the way blacks sometimes pronounce that word (btw, the second example was an honest typo). You know, like the way black comedians portray crackers as un-hip nerds who can’t dance or jump? What? It’s not funny the other way ’round? Aww…
Anyhow, thanks for responding as you did. You ignore that it’s stated that slavery was absurd, as was the ridiculous denying of civil rights. You are so used to whitey cowering, that when you are confronted with someone who simply could not care less about the franchise of victimhood, you have nothing else but the fallback, tried and true response.
Frustration? Pain? Lol again. Son, I have a fantastic life and look forward to every day. As for you, keep fighting da system my man.
Peace out…
JWS on September 23, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Question for “Race Card” and “AprilOrit” – if one or the other of the following were to happen to you, just say that was the way it was going to be, no outs.
1) Someone hangs a noose where you can see it.
2) Six guys beat and stomp you without mercy for a couple of minutes.
Now choose as you will, but I would choose 1) every time. In fact I would choose 1) to happen a million times over 2) happening once.
For additional credit, but no iPod, sorry, how about your son or daughter?
Get some perspective and don’t be so self righteous and transparent.
OK
MB4 on September 23, 2007 at 2:11 AM
For the record, I don’t agree with the protesters in Jena. I don’t think these 6 guys should be “free.” They should be tried and convicted or acquitted by a jury of their peers – just like anybody else.
Just because I am a little more willing to consider nuance in some of these discussions, do not presume me to be in favor of race-baiting or double standards.
You know, like the way black comedians portray crackers as un-hip nerds who can’t dance or jump? What? It’s not funny the other way ’round? Aww…
Are you telling me that its ok for you to purposefully offend some people because of what some “black comedians” do? I just don’t think like that. I’m not party to this racial oneupsmanship played by a lot of grown men. Do as you will, though, because I know it strokes your ego and puffs out your chest.
You ignore that it’s stated that slavery was absurd, as was the ridiculous denying of civil rights.
My response to this would be insulting, because I simply don’t see common decency as commendable.
The last thing you could say about me is that I want to cut the discussion short. I enjoy learning and debating equally. Though very uncommon, I do not have an emotional attachment to the truth.
Your statement actually reveals your own shortcomings, not mine. Whitey cowering: I have never called anyone “whitey.” As for cowering, perhaps you are projecting.
Regarding the “franchise of victimhood” stuff, please. I’m a GOD fearing, American, right-leaning capitalist who loves the constitution. Do you think that just because I’m willing to see nuance in America’s race relations that I must agree with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?
Listen, I’m glad you have a fantastic life. That’s the point of being an American. I’m not looking to make your life harder for you for any reason. I’m guessing that you’re probably a good neighbor and a good guy. America needs more of those. Sometimes, it’s hard for good people to see any wrong in their ways.
You also have a chip on your shoulder. No matter what the offense, you are looking for the race angle to redeem your set-in-stone perspective about politics, crime, entertainment, justice …life.
You’re not alone. A lot of republicans are waiting with baited breath for the next example of racial duplicity. There are actually post comments that invoke Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson when they are not invovled in the news story. It’s social paradigm infection, it’s a warped view.
It’s like I can’t even question your statements without being accused of wanting to intimidate “whitey.” I mean, come on. You must realize how combative you are.
In some jurisdictions, and maybe federally, it is a crime to wear a bullet-proof vest unless you are law enforcement. The act of wearing body armor is seen legally the same as brandishing a weapon (roughly). That’s how I see your attitude. It’s racially passive aggressive – I like to call it “Race Rage.”
The Race Card on September 23, 2007 at 4:50 AM
I was accused once of being Jewish, due to my rather large nose. Since I was in an all-male group, I simply said, “Thanks for the compliment, but I couldn’t pass the physical” and then proved it. I think I embarassed all those bigots, or at least made them jealous.
Texas Nick 77 on September 23, 2007 at 5:27 AM
Exactly how are we protecting them?
PierreLegrand on September 23, 2007 at 9:53 AM
I have been reading this thread for three days now and I have not seen one convincing argument from the crowd that apparantly believes that black people deserve extra rights due to their past oppression.
I am also more convinced than ever that these 6 need to be punished for their unprovoked, gang assault on an innocent schoolboy.
By the way, when ar Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP going to apologise to the “Duke 3″?
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 23, 2007 at 11:49 AM
And on final thought, if all the race baiting hustlers can come up with as their cause du jour is to defend the actions of six gang bangers that committed an unprovoked beatdown on a white child, then real racism must be pretty rare in America.
If they had a better crusade, they would have played that card. These six are no heroes, they are thugs and criminals and they are laughing in the face of their defenders.
Here is a video of the new “Rosa Parks” enjoying his “defense contributions”.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAZQlgPO8qc
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Oh, but the Republicans do embrace racists: the National Council of La Raza. They had veto power on the last amnesty. Democrats embrace racial lobbies in spades. So far, the only group without racial representation is lower to middle class white males. For the most part, the Republicans had this vote locked down. As John LeBoutlier put it, “The average Republican voter is a middle to mid-lower class white male.” The Republicans decided to sacrifice this voter to get more lobbying money and to please the rich, who want cheap labor. Now they’re attempting to court Hispanics, but Hispanics will continue to vote Democrat until the third generation at a ratio of 3:1. Moreover, 90% of up and coming Hispanic politicians come from the Democratic party. The Republicans are about to be extinct as the dinosaur.
Just as socialism and communism don’t work because they are antithetical to human nature, perhaps it’s time to realize the same thing about ethnicity. Every other minority group in the United States works toward their own interests unapologetically. This is unlikely to change, given that demographically, minorities (mostly Mexicans), will soon be in the majority. Perhaps it’s time for Americans of European descent to start acting the same way. Don’t we deserve representation as well, especially considering we’re funding our demographic replacement by minorities through government welfare and free healthcare?
“Birds of a feather flock together.” Can anyone demonstrate why this is inherently wrong?
PRCalDude on September 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM
It is intellectual dishonesty like this that drives this issue.
doriangrey on September 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM
O-K Mr. Gray, but what was their reaction? Were their children admonish? Were they punish? What type of children – tennagers would do such a thing, it appears they were given the idea somewhere in their rearing which is questionable. But perhaps not to you. To me it’s very suspect.
BIG UPDATE TODAY – The Feds to the rescue –
Intellectual dishonesty? There is nothing intellectual about any of this, it’s small minded hate, fear and unawareness.
AprilOrit on September 23, 2007 at 3:42 PM
if my child hung a noose on a tree that they imagined to be a “white tree” or a “gentile tree” I would have been the one, a the parent, to do the beating. They would have never done it again. Hanging the nooses in the tree is where it all began, it should have been avoided. Unless of course you cannot decipher what is freedom of speech and what is hate speech.
And furthermore – a white tree in 2007? All of you have to be kidding if you think this happens all the time.
If it does, well shame on any Aerican, let alone any member of the Party of Lincoln who allows it.
AprilOrit on September 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
April,
You make a lot of good points. I doubt however that you will convince the posters you are debating with.
Apparently they desperately want to form a group called NCAWG (National Council of Aggrieved White Guys) so they can partake of the victim pie they claim to despise.
Bradky on September 23, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Advocate? No. Mocked the notion that since whites don’t understand the severe psychic trauma inflicted by symbolic expressions like nooses, blacks need to be protected from white ignorance in safe isolation.
Should those three white kids who were only suspended have been punished based on their understanding of the noose thing? Should they have been punished based on the psychic trauma inflicted on blacks and liberals all across America? Should they have been punished for the sins of the slave traders, slave holders and Klu Klux Klan because they absorbed the curse by invoking the symbolism?
How is the hysteria over the nooses as if the KKK rides again less absurd than the DA charging attempted murder for non life threatening injuries?
boris on September 23, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Only? Interesting how that “only” slips in there when the black percenatge population is 10%. That is 2 or 3 times greater than your own figures imply it would be if the black crime rate were the same as the white.
If the black crime rate were as low as the white rate there would be over 10% reduction in the number of white victims.
Whatever you think you are showing here that blows it right there.
boris on September 23, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Here is an interesting article about the Jena situation from a local pastor there. He brings up some facts that I didn’t know, especially about the punishment received by the noose hangers:
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=17296&id=32967
serpentineshel on September 23, 2007 at 9:52 PM
So maybe NOM is a yet for us…LOL. Seriously, if I were a man I think I could rule the world.
In my home growing up my Dad was the King of the Castle, and he still is my King, that is until I marry in June of 2008, then the New King moves into the throne, and he is already getting substantial royal treatment which he expects but he also deserves, he’s a really wonderful man, a super catch. My parents love him and he’s all mine!!
Tomorrow is going to be crazy here because of the anti-semitic maniacal Holocaust denying lunatic speaking at Columbia, talk about a noose hanging a**hole.
This MoFo would be stringing swatiskas and lampshades on every “Persian” tree this side of paradise and then some….
AprilOrit on September 23, 2007 at 11:10 PM
You are using Coulter Math. The figures I cited debunked the claim another person made. You are speculating. But that is a popular tactic with people like Coulter. Prove her wrong on a point and she will blow smoke using your proof. You seemed to have learned that tactic well,
Bradky on September 23, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Said it yourself. 11% group produces 21% of white victims. Any person who understands the implication would agree, Coulter or whoever. So this is your argument: if I say that 2 + 2 = 4 and you claim that Coulter would also say that 2 + 2 = 4 therefore it’s a right wing trick.
boris on September 23, 2007 at 11:31 PM
You held to a false claim. I disproved it with proven facts from a credible source. You then change the subject and start with the “if this or if that”. That is the definition of speculation.
Left wingers do it to. You should be happy you have something in common.
Bradky on September 23, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Priceless video, Jay. Bradky, you are playing Useful Idiot for a bunch of punk gangster wannabes. Do you ever get one right?
Jaibones on September 23, 2007 at 11:50 PM
AprilOrit on September 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
You have answered my question completely by your not answering it at all.
MB4 on September 23, 2007 at 11:52 PM
is where it all began
AprilOrit on September 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Oh that line of faux reasoning could apply to so very many things, in fact almost any and everything, many of them you would not like at all.
MB4 on September 23, 2007 at 11:57 PM
LOL this from the Vanilla Ice of Hot Air, with his compelling tales of growing up in the hood in the sixties.
Jai Jai Baby!
Are you a charter member of NCAWG?
Bradky on September 23, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I do not have any children, I am not married yet. I already have an iPod, don’t need one or anything from you.
AprilOrit on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 AM
don’t need one or anything from you.
AprilOrit on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Works for me!
MB4 on September 24, 2007 at 1:32 AM
I note here for the record that you offered no qualitative
defense of the video. Any comments on the young “victim” shown in the video playing with the “defense contributions”?
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I’d like to know the difference between them being allowed to hang the nooses in a tree and the president of Iran being able to spew anti-semitism?
If one bothers you the other should as well, they are both one in the same.
AprilOrit on September 24, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Heh. OK, you got one right. Kudos!
Jaibones on September 24, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Another few bits of info the MSM will leave out of the story can be found at:
http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/09/25/the-truth-about-the-jena-6/
Texas Nick 77 on September 26, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Sigh…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302098.html
So two nooses changes the whole story? what is the threshold that is acceptable in your eyes?
The white tree was a phrase used by a black student in the meeting with the DA at the school. The DA only disputed that he was looking directly at the black students at this assembly.
There was a specific case mentioned in Texas in the article along with two others that explain part of the reason the protest got legs.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-jena25_websep25,0,7139244,full.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
is one of many stories showing that there is a much uglier side coming out now. But as expected, once the glow of the protest and the Rev S & J have left, no one gives a damn that our country has some serious divisions that need to be repaired.
Bradky on September 26, 2007 at 7:30 AM
The threshold, in my eyes, is that you do not stand up for punks that committed assault against an innoocent child simply because 6 months earlier some moron tied a rope to a tree.
Let the Justice System deal with these CRIMINALS.
It is absoltely repugnant how many people take the side of the assaulters due to white hatred or in some case misplaced white guilt.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
And your selective reading and quoting of the linked article is another disgusting tactic that the people backing these thugs have employed.
You imply the sum total of the linked article was that there were 2 nooses instead of 3, which you dismiss sarcastically.
Yet, you ignore completely this paragraph from the same article:
Why do you keep bringing up the nooses as a defense for these sociopathic delinquents when it is clear that it is absolutely unrelated to the assault commited by this gang of thugs.
Here, read the important part again:
So, in summary, you are using an incident involving 2 or 3 nooses hung on a tree six months earlier by unnamed parties that have nothing to with the assaulted student as your justification for giving 3 violent street punks a lighter sentance.
You and everyone on your side is 100% wrong and the intimidation and demonstrations on behalf of these violent criminals is disgusting.
Justice is punishing people that assault innocent children, not setting them free.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 4:23 PM
On conclusion that is easy to draw from this situation, if the race baiting hustlers have no better example to try to agitate people into civic disorder than to stand behind six violent thugs that attacked and knocked uncoscious a child from behind, then real racism must be rare indeed.
If these hustlers had a real incident of racism, they would not need to try to manufacter one here.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
And in conclusion, if you want to see a real example of Racism. Here is the most egregious example of Racism in the last decade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case
http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312369123
When will we hear You, Al and Jesse stand up for the real injustice that occurred in the Duke Lacross Hoax.
I guess these 3 innocent men are the wrong skin color to attract help from certain well known hustlers that pretend they represent justice.
Hypocrisy sucks.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Defending the thugs actions by pointing out discrepancies and contributing factors for the reasons the marchers decided to go to Jena? Wow – that is a leap in logic.
Yes I get it now. Mychal Bell caused the 10K protesters, jackson and sharpton to march to the town and irritate you so greatly.
Nothing less than the death penalty is appropriate for that terrible offense.
Does that about sum up your position?
Bradky on September 26, 2007 at 6:17 PM
And hypocrisy is completely ignoring the three egregious cases cited in the article as well as crying racism because a white prosecutor wrongly accused white kids of an offense against a black liar.
Case of the century indeed!
Bradky on September 26, 2007 at 6:23 PM
The telling point here is that there is no outrage about a savage attack by 6 thugs on an innocent and outnumbered individual. The outrage is about the outrage over the attack. Violence as a response to any level of frustration is so ingrained that they truly do not understand why anyone would be so upset over a little beat down/ fun. “This is what we do” they are crying, “why on earth would anyone even suggest that they were trying to kill that White boy?” And on it goes…
JWS on September 26, 2007 at 6:38 PM
I have as much contempt for White supremacists as I do for black supremacist. They are both sides of the same racist coin and they have absolutely no relevance on this unprovoked assault.
There is no more integrity in being a black racist than there is in being a white one. Anyone that filters their entire world view through the prism of race is a racist period. Shie fits? Wear it.
In the end, we are all the same species, color is irrelevent. Having more pigment does not entitle you to special treatment and neither does having less pigment.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Look, y’all are going on about the “savage attack” “six on one” etc… I’m in the process of giving the documentation to Joe Carter to post, and doubtless he’ll have it up in a couple of days, but here is the account of one of Barker’s friends who was there and taking part in the fight, defending him:
You really should wait until you’ve seen the rest before you get too entrenched in a position on this. This is from a friend of Barker’s who is certainly NOT going to make light of the attack or take a pro-Jena 6 position. This is someone who had a good view of what went on and provided details. This is someone who got in a few licks himself. The witness statements are conflicting in some areas, as you’d expect, but it is NOT a cut and dried “savage” “brutal” “six on one” attack. Barker’s injuries are consistent with this account and the account of ES, another friend of Barker’s.
Does this mean that a crime was not committed? Of course not. The attackers committed a crime and should be punished. But I stand by my comment:
Laura on September 21, 2007 at 4:31 PM
The big picture of what the documents prove is that the media sucks, because this information could have been put out quite a long time ago. But they destroy big chunks of the arguments on both the left and the right. Including arguments I’ve made on my blog. There’s been times I’ve gotten entrenched in trying to prove a point wrt this story – and forgot that what I really wanted was the truth to come out. And I think that may be true of some of y’all as well. You really ought to hold off a bit on this until the rest of the facts are out. Just a friendly suggestion.
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Here’s a fact: it is WRONG for anyone of any color to physically attack another for no reason.
JWS on September 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Your post is undocumented hearsay. Please cite your sources or you have no credibility.
On the other hand, the Reed Walters, the District Attorney of Jena, LA, stated the following:
And, unlike you, I will cite my source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26walters.html?em&ex=1190952000&en=92c547bf9d97eb27&ei=5087
Why on earth would I accept the undocumented, uncited hearsay of an anonymous internet poster as being more credible than a statement provided by the elected District Attorney of Jena?
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 8:37 PM
JayHaw, I’ve got the witness statements and a boatload of other court documents. Keep an eye on Evangelical Outpost – Joe will have them up in a couple of days. I don’t want to put them out until they can ALL be put out at once, and we’re still replacing names with initials to protect the privacy of the minors involved. I don’t expect you to believe me at face value. I’m just suggesting you take a step back and wait and see.
You do as you like, of course. As I said, just a friendly suggestion.
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 8:41 PM
When you present sources, I will analyze them. If they change my opinion, I will post so, here. Until then, though, I must view this as hearsay.
BTW, I would have the identical stance if 6 white students brutally beat a black student.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 8:46 PM
The other big picture of what the documents prove is that these high school students are barely literate. for example, “ternt” instead of “turned,” “goen” instead of “going” … Good grief.
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 9:30 PM
You cite Reed Walters as if he is the Prophet come from the mountaintop but refer to everything else as heresay. The Duke DA had it wrong, it is possible the Jena DA is wrong as well.
LOL – you have JADS (Jesse Al Derangement Syndrome) and don’t see how it colors your view of anything racial.
Bradky on September 26, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Okay, I just got the last of the files to Joe and it looks like he will post them tomorrow. So then we can still argue about this, but at least we’ll all have access to the facts. There’s plenty in there to piss off both sides of this argument.
What’s really going to be amusing is watching the goalpost moving and both sides saying these documents prove them right. And they’ll both be able to make a good case for it, too.
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 10:51 PM
In the beginning of the Duke Fiasco, I did believe Mike Nifong, however within 2-3 weeks of the incident hitting the news, it became very clear from the evidence that no rape had occurred.
Do you have any actual evidence to cite as to why you think Reed Walters is lieing, or are you just offering emotional bluster and no facts?
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 11:19 PM
No more than you have to prove it is all the truth from the scriptures as you present it.
Emotional bluster is your bailiwick, not mine. Jesse, Al …sorry couldn’t resist sending your blood pressure up 30 points.
Bradky on September 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM
At least you aknowledge that your opinion is devoid of any facts.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 26, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Have at it, kids.
I’ve sent him the last handful of witness statements and transcripts several times and he can’t seem to receive them for some reason, but there’s plenty there to get you started.
//making popcorn and preparing to enjoy the show
Laura on September 26, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Okay, it’s all posted except an index of the witness transcripts showing which students were referenced in which statements – for those who are trying to connect the dots, and a photo of the place where Justin Barker was beaten, which we should be able to get to Joe no later than Monday.
Laura on September 27, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I read through all of the documents posted at your link.
Regarding the shotgun inident. I can’t form an opinion from the data provided and still can’t based on the statements provided. This is why I have not offered an opinion on this part of the Jena situation.
The documents “Walters Revoking Bell’s Bail” & “Medical records of Justin Barker” were dead links and therefore I could not read them.
I saw nothing in the remaining documents to indicate that should change my opinion that this was a gang style attack on an innocent victim led by a habitual felon that likes to intimidate people and commit assault.
As I said in another thread, I do not think that this constitutes attempted murder. The DA did overcharge, but that is not evidence of Racism. DA’s tend to overcharge so that they can force defendants into a plea bargain. this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with leverage.
I do not know enough about LA law to know what the criteria for a Juvenile being tried as an adult is. However, when a 17 year old with prior assault convictions commits aggravated assault, while still on probation, it certainly seems reasonable to consider charging that person as an adult if the law calls for it. I see no Racism in that, juveniles of all races are tried as adultrs when the situation warrants it.
A judge decided that trying this defendant as an adult in this case was inappropriate, so he intervened and sent the case to Juvenile court. This is within the judges perogative and I have no issue with it.
Michael Bell’s statement uses the SOGDI (Some Other Guy Did It) defense and seems to be intentionally written to be as vague as possible. It did not have a lot of credibility.
There are multiple witness statements that indicate Bell struck the victim from behind. These statements are not from participants in the fight and they match on key points. Therefore, they are more credible, in my eyes, than Bell’s statement.
I also noted multiple statements where a reference was made to a hit list of white students that were being targeted by
Bell and his gang. Here is where the conspiracy charge comes from. Absolutely justified and not racist, based on the facts.
Corwin Jones statement was short and to the point “I didn’t hit him”. Not very useful in terms of determining fact, and clearly self-serving. Witness L.J. observed Corwin Jones kick the victim in the head “for no reason”.
In the linked witness statements, there was evidence of premeditation, conspiracy and a strong impression was made that Bell and his gang made a habit of intimidating and terrorizing what they percieved as weaker students.
I see nothing in those statements except documentation of an unprovoked, violent attack performed in a cowardly manner from behind with a previously convicted violent thug as the ringleader.
I saw nothing that mitigated or justified this attack.
Again, as I said above, whether or not he should be charged as an adult is legal matter and a judge decided that he shouldn’t. I accept that judges ruling. However, he should be retried in Juvenile court and if found guilty should receive the appropriate sentance for a habitual felon that likes to intimidate and assault people.
Is there something in the witness statements, in particular, that you can call my attention to to prove your case? Because I saw nothing there.
——————————
Here’s some hilights of the witness statements:
——————————
From Witness L.J.: “…all of a sudden, a tall black boy came running up from the side and jumped Justin Barker and slammed his head on the concrete beam that people sometimes sit on. Theo Shaw and a group of other blacks were all standing there waiting for Justin and after he was knocked out cold on the ground Corwin Jones and Robert Bailey started kicking his head for no reason at all…”
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/Jena6Incident13.pdf
—————–
From Witness D.R.: “Me and LE walked out of the gym and turned around when we heard Michael Bell yell. then Justin Barker walked out of the doorway and Michael Bell hit him. Justin fell and they started kicking him…”
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/Jena6Incident11.pdf
——————
Witness J.L.: “…then my girlfriend told me that a black boy in her class had a hit list or something and me, J.H., C.P., E.S. and a lot of other people were on it that I can’t remember but he said that I was at the top of the list.”
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/Jena6Incident07b.pdf
——————-
Witness L.E.: “Justin Barker walked out of the boys jim and a bunch of black boy were gathered around the jim doors and hit Barker and Barker hit the ground and the black boys started kicking him. the boy that threw the first kick was Mike Bell…”
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/Jena6Incident12.pdf
———————-
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 27, 2007 at 1:21 AM
And one last link from me concerning this incident:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=302B2BD0-5674-42E1-BE4C-F1530164219D
Anyone else want to see this slugfest dumped into The Vault?
Texas Nick 77 on September 27, 2007 at 7:55 AM
JayHaw, what interested me most were the two witness statements of the people who were directly involved in the attack, defending Barker. Those two are far more relevant than the ones you listed for reasons that should be obvious. Some of those witness statements, like LJ’s, are negated by statements of those closer to the scene. And all of those statements cannot possibly be true at the same time.
Both of the statements of the two Barker defenders who took part in the fight indicate a brawl, not the 6 on 1 brutal pile on portrayed by Reed Walters. One guy, quite likely Bell, started it. Others quickly joined. The whole thing happened very quickly, and there was a crowd surging around the area so people who weren’t directly involved didn’t necessarily have a clear view. And people who were directly involved – on both sides – have agendas of their own to service. Add to that the fact that some of those statements were taken days later, after they’d all had time to discuss it amongst themselves.
That’s why I wanted them ALL out there, not just the ones I feel support my argument, and I accept that fact that people everywhere are going to pick the ones they like. So be it. I said earlier that people on both sides are going to say these documents support their case. I believe they DO support aspects of both sides of this case. I don’t see a conflict between deploring the fact that Barker was beaten, acknowledging that it was a crime, acknowledging that it didn’t happen in a vacuum, desiring fair punishment for those involved, and a host of other details related to this case.
Further, I’m not sure what you think “my case” is because not only has my opinion on this changed since I started blogging on it in June when the information was extremely limited, there is a nasty straw man tendency among blog commenters everywhere. Everybody wants to “win” the argument at hand, and it’s much easier to get those zingers in when you reduce the other person’s argument down to the lowest common denominator. I’m tired of engaging in those arguments. My source and I worked our @sses off getting this information and preparing it to be released, and now everybody else can duke it out if they want to. But I wanted the truth, and I wanted to move the story forward, since the media wouldn’t, and I’ve tried to be honest and fair about it. People of good will should be free to disagree about our conclusions, but at least we’re not relying on information filtered by the media anymore. That’s the best I can do.
Laura on September 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »