6-on-1 is some bullshit, but the kid who provoked the attack and called the is some bigger bullshit
Not to speak for Rockadelic or agreeing with everything he's saying, but I think he meant to say: "I'm not supporting nooses, (nor am I saying[/b]) the kids shouldn't be punished (nor am I[/b]) downplaying the historical meaning of a noose in the South." At least that's how I read it
6-on-1 is some bullshit, but the kid who provoked the attack and called the is some bigger bullshit
Not to speak for Rockadelic or agreeing with everything he's saying, but I think he meant to say: "I'm not supporting nooses, (nor am I saying[/b]) the kids shouldn't be punished (nor am I[/b]) downplaying the historical meaning of a noose in the South." At least that's how I read it
Keith.....I agree with you 100%....other than the fact that 4 of the Jena 6 WERE adults and therefore would HAVE to be charged as such.
Adults in Texas are 17 and older?
None of the six were 18 or over.
I love schooling the Prof....
Juveniles, as defined by the State of Louisiana are children above the age of 12 but under the age of 17.
Three of the J6 were 17 and one was 18....all considered Adults by La. law.
I wasn't challenging. I really didn't know how LA (not TX) classified adults, age-wise.
However, I don't think the youth who were 17 at the time were tried as juveniles. If I'm reading this right, they were charged as adults. The only one in contention was Bell b/c he was 16 at the time.
What about downplaying the historical role of extreme and excessive punishment metted out by Southern courts to Blacks that fought with, talked wrong to, or even looked wrong at white folks?
That was in the past dood, duh! Who cares about history?
Do you think a crime in 2007 can be justified, or even rationalized by a documented history of unjust and even evil racism??
I don't.
I do.
Many, many people still have yet to receive what they have coming to them...and that's just for the racist stuff that they've done in '07, let alone all other time before that.
Harvey, since you are white and yet to receive what's coming to you, what kind of ass whooping do you think YOU deserve??
Or are you one of the "good" white people??
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Keith.....I agree with you 100%....other than the fact that 4 of the Jena 6 WERE adults and therefore would HAVE to be charged as such.
Why do they HAVE to be charged?
Noone was charged when the black kid got jumped and beaten.
Why does it seem like the goal for some of y'all is to have as many people in jail as possible?
Fights happen...especially amongst youngsters. Not everyone who ever gets in one needs to then spend time in jail.
Harvey...calm down.....charged does not mean convicted OR jailed.
It was determined a crime was committed.
If the perpertrators are to be charged, and are 17 or older, they are to be charged as adults.
If you want to claim that a crime wasn't committed I'm not in a position to argue with you.
I'm sorry, I just can't engage in much of this everything-must-funnel-through-the-bullshit-laws-that-bullshit-people-once-wrote-down-on-bullshit-paper. To me, beating up a racist in a true moment of non-pre-meditated retalitory anxiety is not a crime...unless they actually did some permanent damage to dude. In the end, they just roughed him up a bit...therefore there is no crime to be reported...just a bitch that apparently needs his ass beat AGAIN.
But again, we live in a society known for centuries to be overtly racist. Do you really think that all racist laws and policies have been 100% removed from our society since the Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Do you really believe the playing field to be even as of 2007?
Keith.....I agree with you 100%....other than the fact that 4 of the Jena 6 WERE adults and therefore would HAVE to be charged as such.
Adults in Texas are 17 and older?
None of the six were 18 or over.
I love schooling the Prof....
Juveniles, as defined by the State of Louisiana are children above the age of 12 but under the age of 17.
Three of the J6 were 17 and one was 18....all considered Adults by La. law.
I wasn't challenging. I really didn't know how LA (not TX) classified adults, age-wise.
However, I don't think the youth who were 17 at the time were tried as juveniles. If I'm reading this right, they were charged as adults. The only one in contention was Bell b/c he was 16 at the time.
If this is true, I'm not sure what your point is except that you think the Jena 6 are getting off "easy".
My only point is that uninformed people are yelling that the "Jena 6" shouldn't have been tried as adults when that is patently incorrect.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
What about downplaying the historical role of extreme and excessive punishment metted out by Southern courts to Blacks that fought with, talked wrong to, or even looked wrong at white folks?
That was in the past dood, duh! Who cares about history?
Do you think a crime in 2007 can be justified, or even rationalized by a documented history of unjust and even evil racism??
I don't.
I do.
Many, many people still have yet to receive what they have coming to them...and that's just for the racist stuff that they've done in '07, let alone all other time before that.
Harvey, since you are white and yet to receive what's coming to you, what kind of ass whooping do you think YOU deserve??
Or are you one of the "good" white people??
I got my ass-whoopin' way back in '78 when I was in 2nd grade and wrongfully accused this black kid of stealing my LSU cap. At the time, I didn't realize why my accusation made the kid so angry.
Keith.....I agree with you 100%....other than the fact that 4 of the Jena 6 WERE adults and therefore would HAVE to be charged as such.
Adults in Texas are 17 and older?
None of the six were 18 or over.
I love schooling the Prof....
Juveniles, as defined by the State of Louisiana are children above the age of 12 but under the age of 17.
Three of the J6 were 17 and one was 18....all considered Adults by La. law.
I wasn't challenging. I really didn't know how LA (not TX) classified adults, age-wise.
However, I don't think the youth who were 17 at the time were tried as juveniles. If I'm reading this right, they were charged as adults. The only one in contention was Bell b/c he was 16 at the time.
If this is true, I'm not sure what your point is except that you think the Jena 6 are getting off "easy".
My only point is that uninformed people are yelling that the "Jena 6" shouldn't have been tried as adults when that is patently incorrect.
Is that a big sticking point? It seems to me the bigger issue is that they were charged with felony attempted murder to begin with.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Keith.....I agree with you 100%....other than the fact that 4 of the Jena 6 WERE adults and therefore would HAVE to be charged as such.
Adults in Texas are 17 and older?
None of the six were 18 or over.
I love schooling the Prof....
Juveniles, as defined by the State of Louisiana are children above the age of 12 but under the age of 17.
Three of the J6 were 17 and one was 18....all considered Adults by La. law.
I wasn't challenging. I really didn't know how LA (not TX) classified adults, age-wise.
However, I don't think the youth who were 17 at the time were tried as juveniles. If I'm reading this right, they were charged as adults. The only one in contention was Bell b/c he was 16 at the time.
If this is true, I'm not sure what your point is except that you think the Jena 6 are getting off "easy".
My only point is that uninformed people are yelling that the "Jena 6" shouldn't have been tried as adults when that is patently incorrect.
No, what is incorrect is to stand by bullshit laws and policies just becasue some racist assholes had previously written them into law.
The argument is that trying those kids as adults is unjust[/b].
What about downplaying the historical role of extreme and excessive punishment metted out by Southern courts to Blacks that fought with, talked wrong to, or even looked wrong at white folks?
That was in the past dood, duh! Who cares about history?
Do you think a crime in 2007 can be justified, or even rationalized by a documented history of unjust and even evil racism??
I don't.
That's all fine and good but the issue is not whether or not the crime is justified or justifiable - the issue is a racist justice system that is oppressing Black people, using exactly the same tactics as they did in the Jim Crow era. It is historically consistent. It has never been about the crime. It is about oppression. It is so much bigger than the actual crime.
This thread has been about EVERYTHING but the actual issue.
I got my ass-whoopin' way back in '78 when I was in 2nd grade and wrongfully accused this black kid of stealing my LSU cap. At the time, I didn't realize why my accusation made the kid so angry.
This thread has been about EVERYTHING but the actual issue.
It's also managed to sidestep what people believe the proper reaction should be to the crime.
I asked it a few pages back and no one answered.
People believe either than the charges should be dropped, reduced, or left as they are. Not sure what you're getting at there.
Nobody seems to be looking at the bigger picture of aggressive oppression through the justice system though. This DA is a government official. The kids are citizens. Felons lose the right to vote, among others. This isn't about the actual fist fight.
This thread has been about EVERYTHING but the actual issue.
It's also managed to sidestep what people believe the proper reaction should be to the crime.
I asked it a few pages back and no one answered.
People believe either than the charges should be dropped, reduced, or left as they are. Not sure what you're getting at there.
when you say people, what people are you talking about? I'm asking about the people in this thread who are showing their outrage in either direction. What do YOU think the punishment should be?
This thread has been about EVERYTHING but the actual issue.
It's also managed to sidestep what people believe the proper reaction should be to the crime.
I asked it a few pages back and no one answered.
People believe either than the charges should be dropped, reduced, or left as they are. Not sure what you're getting at there.
when you say people, what people are you talking about? I'm asking about the people in this thread who are showing their outrage in either direction. What do YOU think the punishment should be?
I am talking about people in this thread - some of whom have argued that the charges be dropped, others who seem to think they should remain, or be minimized to different degrees. I've picked that up, maybe you should re-read it.
I think the charges should be bust down to misdemeanors and the kids should be released with time served and probation. That would be the standard treatment elsewhere (especially so for their white counterparts).
I think the charges should be bust down to misdemeanors and the kids should be released with time served and probation. That would be the standard treatment elsewhere (especially so for their white counterparts).
I'd also add that the I don't think the DA should retain his job the next time he's up for election/appointment.
And the local high school needs a more fair-minded school board and superintendent.
And if noose hanging is not already on the books as a hate crime - it ought to be!
Felons lose the right to vote, among others. This isn't about the actual fist fight.
that's just a myth... felons can vote as long as they're not currently on trial or awaiting conviction... but having a felony on your record does not take away your right to vote. believe me, because i still vote.
Felons lose the right to vote, among others. This isn't about the actual fist fight.
that's just a myth... felons can vote as long as they're not currently on trial or awaiting conviction... but having a felony on your record does not take away your right to vote. believe me, because i still vote.
It's not a myth. It depends on the state and other factors.
key words "while incarcerated" or "on parole"... that's what i was saying. once you've done your time or whatever, you can vote. but having that on your record does not take away your right. "Two states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. Nine others disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders and/or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a waiting period (e.g., five years in Delaware and Wyoming, and two years in Nebraska).
Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them. "
key words "while incarcerated" or "on parole"... that's what i was saying. once you've done your time or whatever, you can vote. but having that on your record does not take away your right. RIF
Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them.
Comments
Not to speak for Rockadelic or agreeing with everything he's saying, but I think he meant to say: "I'm not supporting nooses, (nor am I saying[/b]) the kids shouldn't be punished (nor am I[/b]) downplaying the historical meaning of a noose in the South." At least that's how I read it
Ah, this is a grammatical issue. I thought you were saying kids shouldn't be punished for downplaying the historical meaning of a noose.
My bad. I should go back and re-read "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves."
Thank you for your sanity and grammar.
Adults in Texas are 17 and older?
None of the six were 18 or over.
Why do they HAVE to be charged?
Noone was charged when the black kid got jumped and beaten.
Why does it seem like the goal for some of y'all is to have as many people in jail as possible?
Fights happen...especially amongst youngsters. Not everyone who ever gets in one needs to then spend time in jail.
I love schooling the Prof....
Juveniles, as defined by the State of Louisiana are children above the age of 12 but under the age of 17.
Three of the J6 were 17 and one was 18....all considered Adults by La. law.
More bullshit that needs to be repealed.
Harvey...calm down.....charged does not mean convicted OR jailed.
It was determined a crime was committed.
If the perpertrators are to be charged, and are 17 or older, they are to be charged as adults.
If you want to claim that a crime wasn't committed I'm not in a position to argue with you.
I wasn't challenging. I really didn't know how LA (not TX) classified adults, age-wise.
However, I don't think the youth who were 17 at the time were tried as juveniles. If I'm reading this right, they were charged as adults. The only one in contention was Bell b/c he was 16 at the time.
Harvey, since you are white and yet to receive what's coming to you, what kind of ass whooping do you think YOU deserve??
Or are you one of the "good" white people??
I'm sorry, I just can't engage in much of this everything-must-funnel-through-the-bullshit-laws-that-bullshit-people-once-wrote-down-on-bullshit-paper. To me, beating up a racist in a true moment of non-pre-meditated retalitory anxiety is not a crime...unless they actually did some permanent damage to dude. In the end, they just roughed him up a bit...therefore there is no crime to be reported...just a bitch that apparently needs his ass beat AGAIN.
But again, we live in a society known for centuries to be overtly racist. Do you really think that all racist laws and policies have been 100% removed from our society since the Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Do you really believe the playing field to be even as of 2007?
My only point is that uninformed people are yelling that the "Jena 6" shouldn't have been tried as adults when that is patently incorrect.
I got my ass-whoopin' way back in '78 when I was in 2nd grade and wrongfully accused this black kid of stealing my LSU cap. At the time, I didn't realize why my accusation made the kid so angry.
Is that a big sticking point? It seems to me the bigger issue is that they were charged with felony attempted murder to begin with.
No, what is incorrect is to stand by bullshit laws and policies just becasue some racist assholes had previously written them into law.
The argument is that trying those kids as adults is unjust[/b].
It's also managed to sidestep what people believe the proper reaction should be to the crime.
I asked it a few pages back and no one answered.
Well said.
the root of white guilt revealed
People believe either than the charges should be dropped, reduced, or left as they are. Not sure what you're getting at there.
Nobody seems to be looking at the bigger picture of aggressive oppression through the justice system though. This DA is a government official. The kids are citizens. Felons lose the right to vote, among others. This isn't about the actual fist fight.
when you say people, what people are you talking about? I'm asking about the people in this thread who are showing their outrage in either direction. What do YOU think the punishment should be?
I am talking about people in this thread - some of whom have argued that the charges be dropped, others who seem to think they should remain, or be minimized to different degrees. I've picked that up, maybe you should re-read it.
I think the charges should be bust down to misdemeanors and the kids should be released with time served and probation. That would be the standard treatment elsewhere (especially so for their white counterparts).
I'd also add that the I don't think the DA should retain his job the next time he's up for election/appointment.
And the local high school needs a more fair-minded school board and superintendent.
And if noose hanging is not already on the books as a hate crime - it ought to be!
agreed
I answered, suspension/expulsion from school...it was a school incident
that's just a myth... felons can vote as long as they're not currently on trial or awaiting conviction... but having a felony on your record does not take away your right to vote. believe me, because i still vote.
It's not a myth. It depends on the state and other factors.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Cfd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf
It's not a myth. It depends on the state and other factors.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Cfd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf
key words "while incarcerated" or "on parole"... that's what i was saying. once you've done your time or whatever, you can vote. but having that on your record does not take away your right.
key words "while incarcerated" or "on parole"... that's what i was saying. once you've done your time or whatever, you can vote. but having that on your record does not take away your right.
"Two states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. Nine others disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders and/or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a waiting period (e.g., five years in Delaware and Wyoming, and two years in Nebraska).
Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them. "
key words "while incarcerated" or "on parole"... that's what i was saying. once you've done your time or whatever, you can vote. but having that on your record does not take away your right.
RIF
I am surprised anyone's really arguing this shit.