Bront's Forums

I'll let you know when I get to actualy hear more about it.

Is this the one where the 6 black kids are getting jail time for a high school fight with a white kid?

Louisiana?!?
In all seriousness, bro. Do you proof-read your stuff? Cause it is starting to be a little embarassing.

There's among friends and then there's just plain embarrassing. I try not to harp on it too much but there are times...

Thanks buddy.   
Up yours!   

Thats pretty much what I got from wiki.  Just be careful when buying shoes in Louisiana that you don't carry them home in a box, or you could be arrested for carrying a concealed deadly weapon!  I think the most blame falls on the school board.  What racist morons!  Yeah, dangling nooses from a tree is just good clean fun, nothing warrenting expulsion or anything, just 3 days of in school suspension...  I think I should move down there, I could probably get away with murder, being white and all.  Or does that not apply when I'm targeting stupid white folk?

Well, what I do know is that if I were to hang nooses from any of my high school trees after a racialy charged incident, no matter what colors they were flying, no matter who they were playing, no matter what excuse I may have tried to shovel on the school board, I would have recieved more than a 3 day in schol suspension.  More likely that I would have recieved 2 weeks out of school suspension with an expulsion pending a review.  I find it semi-humorous that the principals request to have the studentds expelled was ingnored, and the principal being closer than any board member to the situation should have had the most say.  Maybe this is just because where I grew up, where the white people were in the minority to the minorities.  I betcha if you moved some of these white folks in jena somewhere where they're in the minority, they will quickly learn how to get along with people of other races.  They may never completely give up a lifetime of predjudice and bigotry, but they just might become better people for it.  I learned a lot about diversity and different cultures in high school, it was one of the few possitive things I was able to come away with.  My open mind as far as culture and people largely stems from the multi-racial environment I was around and my freinds being just as diverse.  All it seems that these kids down there are learning is that it is acceptable to have a "white tree" for only white folks to sit under and to "conveiniently" dangle school colored nooses from the "white tree" aftr a black kid sat under it.  IMO this is in no way humorous or acceptable behavior in modern society.  I could think of a 1000 similar analogies that would prove the point, but that would be overkill.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.  Like the fact that in order to charge to kids with attempted murder, they had to be attacking the guy with a deadly weapon.  Their way around that was to have the jury rule that the kids sneakers were deadly weapons, thus allowing the attempted murder charges through.  I'm sure if those kids wanted that guy dead, he wouldn't be alive right now.  The most those kids should have been charged with was aggrivated assualt.  But I am no law expert either, alot of this is just my opinion.  And I thank you for yours Goldmoon,  I've learned a little more information that i didn't know before.  I'm sure we'll never get the whole story from either side, we'll just have to continue reading between the lines.  Unless we were on the jury, but even than, I betcha it would be hard getting to the facts with all the media crap going on down there.     

I totally agree.  Thats why they should go to jail.  All these "free the Jena six" shirts I see on TV make me laugh.  Aggrivated assualt is no small matter and they should have the book thrown at them.  But attemted murder because their sneakers are deadly weapons?  Gimmie a break.  What are they, Bruce Lee?  And even if they were, thier shoes wouldn't be the deadly weapons, "they" would be the deadly weapons.  IMO

I agree.  However I think the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter is intent.  If you were choking him after he had lost consiousnes with the intent to end his life and he died, you are guilty of murder.  If however you were choking him and in the heat of the moment choked him to death, or he had some unforseen malady that caused him to unduly die while you were choking him, thats manslaughter.  By law there is a difference.  Now, with six guys wailing on a guy just how easy is it to tell when the victim is no longer playing possom and is indeed unconscious?  I think the prosecution was reaching when it tried for attempted murder.  I mean come on!  6 guys wailing on one guy and all 6 fail to kill him?  Either they make up the most inept group of murderers in the world, or, they weren't trying to kill him.  So, the question becomes what was the motive for the prosecution to try and get attempted murder?  Kicking someone while they're out is a far cry from trying to kill them.  I'm suprised people so easily believe this stuff, but than again, most people don't know squat about law.  I know we'll never get all the facts here, but I find it a little hard to believe that racial bigotry didn't play some part behind some of these decisions.  Think about it.
TV

Yes basically, because its not just one person who failed, or two, or three, or four, or five, but six.  Six people failed to kill him?  A seemingly unconsious foe.  Now, I don't know about you, but if I wanted to kill someone and he wasn't defending himself, I would think it pretty easy for me to kill him, just speculation mind you, as I've never actually killed someone, but I would imagine it pretty easy to kill a defensless foe.  Now add on top of that five more guys, would only make it easier to accomplish the task of killing him.  So what I'm saying is they failed because they weren't even trying, not;Is that clearer?
Well, I don't know how many ganged attacks you've seen, but the few I have been privvy to (from my vantage point anyway) looked like the guy was not looking for the next blow to come in order to tense up for it, they were just laying there still, trying to protect whatever parts of themselves they could, and with four or five guys on them, none of them appeared to be watching and checking for how limp the guy was.  They probably couldn't have cared less.  And thats even assuming that they were beating him while unconsious.  Where did you get that?  You seem to be operating on a lot more info than I have been able to find.  If you could point me to where you are getting your details, I could get up to speed.I agree, but how much of this happened after the media scrutiny?So my last question is exactly what kind of prosecuter tries to set charges before the medical evidence is in??  Now they're not racist, they're incompitent?  (of course, I don't know a whole lot about that aspect of the legal system, I'll have to ask an actual lawyer for clarification on that one.  Hey Mark, if you're reading this, perhaps you could, or know someone who could, shed some light on this?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six  is a good account.


Bront, no doubt there are race problems there, but people who gang up and beat a lone person unconscious need to be removed from the general population until they learn better behavior.    Did you notice one of the Jena Six was involved in the shotgun incident you site?  Bailey and company have a history of fighting lone white people, yet you want to see him as the victim.  I appreciate that you are obviously well read on the topic, but Bailey being locked up for a while would solve a very real race problem.  Being so well read, you must have noticed the school did react in an appropriate way to the nooses.  Calling an assembly and having the District Attorney address the assembly, with police in the halls the day after, and punishment of the boys who put them up went well beyond a three day in school suspension.


Raistlin, Hey T, I assure you, one can tell when someone is unconscious.  Under friendlier circumstances, I’ve been on both sides knocking out and being knocked out, but our code of violence was different back then, we stopped when the other guy went unconscious, and we picked them up and hit them again if they covered up, and it was always One on One, and one side just needed to say “ok, your right” and the conflict was over.  

The prosecutor has to set the charges, so due process can begin.  Charges are often reduced, after all the facts are in. 

To be clear the media helped nothing in this case, they only stirred the pot, often having to print retractions which no one notices, after printing untrue HEADLINES which everyone sees.  Are there race problems?  Sure, but the Jena Six are clearly guilty of assault and worthy of jail time.  Being Black does not excuse them.    

I am flabberghasted that you would consider an assembly and police roaming the halls the day after to be an "appropriate" reaction to the situation.  And to what punishment did they recieve beyond the 3-day in school suspension? I did not find anything in the wiki for it, and please site the source of your info.
The fights that I have personally seen were not one on one, and I would imagine that an individual would react differently to being beaten by one guy than six.  And the fact that you were waiting for him to fall unconscious or submitt shows you were maintaining watch for such things, where as in the fights I've seen the guys were more interested in beating the crap out of him, which I'm thinking was the case here.  So I'm not sure what your personal experiences have to do with this situation, seemingly because they were so vastly different than the one we are talking about.That seems to be a rather large peice of evidence to continue without.  At least in my opinion.
I'm not exactly where your getting that from, for I never inferred that nor have I read any other post here to inferr that.  However, just because 6 black guys are guilty of assault does not excuse all the racially motivated mishandling of most of what is surrounding this case.  That is all I'm saying.
But it sounds like you are suggesting something like all they have to do is lock up all the black people and it would solve all the race problems that they are having.  Well, my suggestion is that the whites there are just as guilty for what is happening as the black people, and there is no reason for them to get away scott free.  (or virtually scott free, like in the situation where the guy went after Bailey with his shotgun.  Gee, what do you think he was going to do with it?  Beat him with it?  I guess its a good thing Bailey was able to get it away from him, and look, nobody got shot.  Very interesting.)

Well, like I said before, the media isn't good for much, and rarely helps anything, but for as little I know of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I know I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than vote for either of them for President.  Any one can become a "Reverend" these days, and I could think of about a million things I'd rather be doing than sitting through one of their "church" services.  The media hype really has no bearing on my arguement whatsoever.  I really don't care who's side they are taking.  I couldn't care less.  But, to the point, I remember saying before;So let me state this again, they broke the law and they should be punished.  And for your info, a lot of your info is misquoted from wiki (as I have recently reread it and found a "little" more in it this time) such as the murder charges being droped one day after the trial started.  Only the murder charges of Mikael Bell were dropped in June.  Three of the others finally had theirs dropped on September 6th and 10th, but one of them was 15 at the time and never faced those charges, and the three others had the charges reduced to 2nd degree aggrivated battery and conspiracy to commit aggrivated battery, leaving the one who was 18 at the time, as of right now, still facing attemped murder charges.  So if you would read the source you are directing me to, you will see that it is not hype to talk about these charges, at least not in any sane world I've ever heard of.  And there is no mention whatsoever of the charges being reduced because of medical evidence recieved after the charges were set.  So where did you pull that from.  As I can only form an opinion on available information that I can see, and since you seem unwilling to give me further sources of the information that you seem to be arguing from, I can only assume you are pulling it out of your ass.  And while we are on the subject of pulling things out of the ass,
Well, from what I remember of the criminal law class I took, whether you take a gun and shoot someone in the foot, or you shoot someone in the face, if they survive, you are facing attemped murder charges.  The thinking behind it I believe is that a gun is a deadly weapon, and discharge of it, even by fairly proficient marksman, could still result in the death of the target, no matter where you were aiming.  There is also a law stating that self defense is limited to acceptable escalation.  Which basically means that if I'm gonna kick your ass, and you pull out a knife and stab me to death, it is not self defense because you escalated the level of intent.  Similarly, if I'm comming after you with a knife to rob you and you whip out your gun and blow me away, you cannot say it was self defense because again you elevated the level of intent.  I'm not saying I entirely agree with this law but unless its been changed in the last 10 years, its still on the books. 

Now as far as the shotgun situation goes, Baily was chasing the guy and the white guy ran and got his shotgun.  Baily is not reported as to having any weapons whatsoever (except his shoes, which I'll get into later) and the white guy whips out a shotgun.  There is no "legal" way of claiming self defense there, the fact that Baily got it away from him and didn't shoot the guy with it is testimony enough that Baily wasn't out to kill him.  So, what was the white guy going to do with it?  He is the one who got it out.  Baily was forced into a situation where he had to either disarm the guy, or likely take some buck shot somewhere.  So what did the police charge the shotgun owning individual who brandished it with what was probably intended to be used on Bailey?  Nothing.  What was Bailey charged with after disarming the guy of his shotgun?  Here goes; theft of a firearm, second degree robbery, and disturbing the peace.  Now, this is all in the wiki that you sited me, anyone can go and read the same thing I just posted there.  Why am I the only one who thinks this is somehow very wrong?  I mean c'mon people, lets pull our collective heads out of our asses and realize there is a deeper problem that a lot of people are choosing to ignore.  I fully realise that it is entirely possible Bailey instigated the incident, and he is by no means innocent of any wrong doing, but look at the charges.  Theft of a firearm that was pulled on him by someone?  Second degree robbery because it was a shotgun, and disturbing the peace (for who knows what.  Maybe for chasing the guy in the first place.  Probably the only legitimate charge), and the other guy got nothing.  What, does he have a liceance to threaten with firearms in public?  If so, where can I get one?  IMO, something just aint right there. 

Now lets go back to the reduced charges of Aggrivated second degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggrivated second degree battery.  First off, from what I read, Barker started the incident by mocking Bailey for loosing a fight the previous day.  Now I don't know what kind of world you live in Fry, but when someone taunts you for getting beaten up, they are basically challenging your ability to defend yourself and aren't really afraid of your abilities to do anything about it.  In my younger days I know that would have provoked a response from me, probably leading to a fight.  I personally believe if you are going to open your mouth to make such challenges than you better be prepared for the consequences, because you asked for it.  If Bailey had beat him like that by himself, I would have said that Barker deserved what he got.  Maybe next time he'll keep his trap shut.  But due to the six guys jumping the guy, I feel that went well beyond a reasonable measured response.  These guys went too fart.  And they should pay for their crime, considering some of their past records, the maximum penalties allowable by law would be my suggestion. 

But that does not excuse the misshandling of the charges surrounding this case.  For instance (again, I site the source of my information, wiki), when the charges were reduced to agrivatted second degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggrivated second degree battery, it hinged upon the fact that they needed to be attacking Barker with deadly weapons in order to get this severe of a charge.  And the jury ultimately agreed that their shoes were deadly weapons and so the charges stuck.  Hello, reason police! They are definately guilty of beating the hell out of that guy, but why is it so hard to charge a black person down there with an applicable charge for the crimes they commit?  And was Barker even suspended or expelled for starting the fight?  Wiki didn't say.  Shoes?  A deadly weapon?  I guess I need a liceance to carry concealed deadly weapons whenever I want to buy a box of shoes in Jena.  Gimmie a brake!  What a load of F'ed up malarky!  This all remeinds me of a skit I once heard on Dr. Dimento, where a black guy gets hit by a car driven by a drunk white guy in the south.  When the cop arrives on the scene, he says,"Lets see, what can I write tickets for.  The guy was J walking,  He flew 100 feet, so, leaving the scene of an accident.  He hit that sign over there, destroying public property.  He's making a lot of loud yelling and screaming over there, disturbing the peace...."

And finally, the last thing I would like to address is this;You seem to be implying that I cannot have an intelligent discourse over a topic if I have further information on which to base my understanding of events on.  While simultaniously giving me only one source of your facts and than miss quoting said facts in your posts.  If you cannot bring credible discussion to the table, but rather condescending drivel, than I would appreciate it if you would remove yourself from my conversation so I can continue to have more credible conversation with others who are not so tight lipped on their sources of information, or at least can accurately quote from them.   

Do you have anything constructive to add?

Perhaps I have misunderstood some of this.  Like;It seemed to me you were implying that I was not up to speed enough on the topic nor be able to have a more detailed discussion of the events as they happened.  So what was your intent behind those statements, for I must have greviously misinterpreted them
And Bront, could you clue me in on the places and such of where you have gained your information on the subject matter, because I would like to be as well read on the topic as you.  I remember asking for good places for information before and all I got was wiki, the one place I had already looked at and read.  It would be greatly appreciated.

Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was;
Now I could be wrong here, and I'm always open to outside opinion, but I don't think you have any basis on which to question my logic here.  There is a huge difference between attacking someone with your fist and pulling a gun on someone.  Let me explain why, for you seem to have missed it.  I have attacked many a person with my fists, never with the intent of killing anybody.  Had I wanted to kill some of them, I'm sure I could have, with my bare hands.  I don't think it too difficult once you have the upper hand to finish the job.  Of course thats conjucture, for I have never actually killed someone.  And I have had many a conversation with friends trained in the ending of human life without a weapon. And I know there are many things one can do to end an opponents life or deal permanant damage.  The fact that "SIX" individuals attacked this guy and he didn't end up dead, not even permanently injured from what I read, would logically dictate that they probably weren't trying to kill the guy.  It would have been way too easy for the six of them to permamently injure or kill the guy that the chances of them failing in such a huge way just wouldn't be logical.  You can ask a number of individuals if you refuse to beleive this.  I suggest talking with Drew or Eric, or even Verne.  Even though I haven't had similar discussions with Jay, I believe he would be a good source of information as well. 

Now, if you shoot someone with a gun, even if its not in the head or heart, they could still die of shock (the most common cause of death by gunshot wound) or bleed to death.  Which is I think why the law sees it as intent to murder.  So when the guy pulled out his shotgun on Bailey, What do you think he was going to do with it?  Just because he didn't get a chance to use it because Bailey disarmed him means that he wasn't going to shoot him?  I think your logic is faulty there.  Of course, since my IQ is only in the 130's, and my logical ability wasn't the highest category (I think it was the second) my understanding of logic may be flawed.  I'm no Spock or anything, and I've only taken one frikkin' criminal law class for pete's sake, so there is much that I don't know.  The whole reason I started this thread was to find out more information on the subject and talk about them.  But you seemed to argue in circles, using circular reasoning and then attacking my sense of fairness.  For example;You seem to be arguing that they were trying to kill him, and I must be a moron for thinking that because they failed they weren't trying to.  Yet, you claim that the system worked because the charges were lowered.  Well, either you think that they were trying to kill him and therefore the system failed, because they should get attempted murder.  Or, they were not trying to kill him (no matter the end result) and the system is working.  You can't have it both ways.  It is illogical to think both are correct.  And no amount of covering up, and repair work down there now is going to remove the fact that it is not an unbiased judicial system down there.  And the people there are hoping everyone continues to chalk it all up to hype and bury their heads in the sand because than they can continue on the same way they have been.  And nothing will change.  Light needs to be shed on the inconsistancies of these two cases or this kind of crap will keep happening down there.  Bringing national attention to this is the only good thing the media is doing for it. I would hate to misinterpret anything again, but what did you meen by that?

I'm generally one who thinks that the race card is used too often, but this particular issue is racially motivated in it's entirety.

I think that in many cases, the white kids involved have been looked over and the black ones have been punished far too often when neither is innocent.

I'm also generaly of the idea that fights between school kids should try to be kept out of court, but this case is certaintly more extreme than most.