Forums > Personal > David Bowie donates 10,000 to Jena 6 fund

forum rss feed
Author

Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1
Bohemian: 411 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 16:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_en_ce/people_david_bowie;_ylt=AqkvEhzrDLPxqyF8z5WFKLIDW7oF


I love you,Beata!
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 17:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Apparently, if you gang beat someone, it's okay if they provoked you with racially-charged gestures.

Edit: Apparently the attacks weren't even provoked. The kid was just jumped by six students, and suffered substantial injuries. Past history is irrelevant - this was a felony.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1
Bohemian: 411 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 17:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree also


I love you,Beata!
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 17:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

colfarrell1 wrote:

yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree also


Although this is irrelevant information, there were either 2 or 3 nooses hung from the tree three months prior to the attack in question. It is publicly unknown who the students responsible for the nooses were.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
LozlanTheMage user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 203 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 19:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour.

Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).

Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Miss Multiples aka colfarrell1
Bohemian: 411 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 19:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

LozlanTheMage wrote:

Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour.

Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).


I agree with you


I love you,Beata!
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Sep 07, 22:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

LozlanTheMage wrote:

Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour.

Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).


Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?

I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't. I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.

Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.

Anyway, this kid has a history and is unlikely to be reformed, and it is just sad - 2 battery convictions (one for punching a 17 year old girl in the face), and 2 convictions of criminal damage to property. Keep in mind that this is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. However, we're not talking about an innocent child who just happened to get caught up in a gang beating. It was premeditated, preemptive, and criminal. People act like they should be exculpated, to which I have only this to ask: what the fuck?


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 11:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

Apparently, if you gang beat someone, it's okay if they provoked you with racially-charged gestures.

Edit: Apparently the attacks weren't even provoked. The kid was just jumped by six students, and suffered substantial injuries. Past history is irrelevant - this was a felony.

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

colfarrell1 wrote:

yeah..there had been 6 nooses hung at the school in a tree also


Although this is irrelevant information, there were either 2 or 3 nooses hung from the tree three months prior to the attack in question. It is publicly unknown who the students responsible for the nooses were.


If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.

We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.
But I digress; 'the blacks' attacked 'the whites' in the form of a group of upset, scared people who were not being rational attacking a defenseless person, who was nevertheless part of the group they were threatened by. Again, let me stress that we do not know if there was a provocation, so we cannot pass any judgement whatsoever over that.
Then there is the justice system, which is the matter that is really important. The DA illegally held a suspect in custody. When his conviction had been overturned, and he was not released, the DA committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE by refusing to release him. What his motives are, we can only guess about, but only one motive is truly believable: revenge. He was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group.
Do not kid yourselves; Jim Crow-law is not dead, it has merely gone underground. What we see here is not the whole of the story, something which is, like context, as close to a historical axiom as we can get: the media only give you snapshots of the moment. It is merely the release of overpressure on a system, because only overpressure makes it into the media. The system is white supremacy, and that is the key theme of this incident.
Conservatives like Music Man of course do not want to draw this conclusion, and thus they go for what they see is feasible. That is certainly possible, and it does not require the least bit of lying. It does involve not telling the *whole* truth (meaning: ignoring the context as described abover, and leaving out the background, the second axiom, and finally monocausality, as anything other than the criminal nature of the act is ignored, which is not justice). They do not necessarily conceive of it as such (namely: a pseudo-truth), but it does serve an important agenda to them: there is no racism in the system.
It is very important to the Right, to say that there is no racism in the system. Not only that, they must, preferably, also believe it themselves. You see, if there would be racism in the system, the system would have faults. If it has known faults, it is improveable. And that exactly is the problem: if the system turns out decisively proven imperfect and at least in part fixable (as there is a concrete fault discovered) at the same time, they have no justification for a policy to change as little to tradition as is possible.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 11:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote:

Hm. It would be fair to assume that white students were responsible for hanging the nooses, which in turn triggered the immense and wending racial deterioration of the situation over the following months. The connection between the nooses (which have been classed by many as a hate crime) and the subsequent gang violence should be clear to anyone even remotely informed of the situation and sporting a vague understanding of human behaviour.

Oh, and I hardly think that a beating requiring 2 hours of hospital treatment should result in 20-odd-year prison sentences. Call me crazy (or, more likely, sane).


Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?


No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post).

I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.


You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post).

I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.


Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post.

Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.


Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post.

Anyway, this kid has a history and is unlikely to be reformed, and it is just sad - 2 battery convictions (one for punching a 17 year old girl in the face), and 2 convictions of criminal damage to property. Keep in mind that this is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.


Sir, if I didn't know very well that I have morality on my side in this discussion, I would now swear at you for this dirty trick. Indeed this is irrelevant to the case at hand! Still, you name it. Irrelevant information for the case under discussion, as you said yourself. But you name it, because it will again put emotional weight on your side of the story, regardless of the fact that this is emotion immaterial to the present topic. But you are trying to mislead the public into buying into your flawed side of the argument by diverting attention yet again.

However, we're not talking about an innocent child who just happened to get caught up in a gang beating. It was premeditated, preemptive, and criminal. People act like they should be exculpated, to which I have onl


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Folks, what you don't understand is that it's a different mind-set in the deep south. The Klan is still alive and well and they don't have bones about letting people know.

You saw a few days ago the a couple of them drove around during the protest march with nooses hanging from their pickup.

While that kind of shit shouldn't be allowed, unfortunately it happens and everyone around knows it. There are certain places white folk shouldn't go, and certain places black folk shouldn't go. I wish it wasn't still 1960 in some places, but that's just how it is.

Remember, the students went to the administrators to ask permission to hang out where the white kids hang out. They knew it was going to cause a problem. They didn't care about the big picture. So is it right for capital charges to be pressed?

Yes, because this was a premeditated act. Those 6 kids knew they were causing a problem in the first place. The white kids didn't ask to hang out at 7-11 in the ghetto at 2a.m.

Why did the black kids want to hang out under that tree on that particular day? That we will never know, thanks to Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the protestors, and all the BS that has come with what should have been a simple hate crime.

Edna Thompson knows the game. "The best thing, if you're black in this town, is to stay out of the system, because once they get you, you're done for. You're not getting out," Edna Thompson, a longtime friend of the Bells, said later.

You can always move to a more civilized place, but if you live in the mean streets, better be prepared to play the game.

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Isn't anyone else sick how the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and all the black leaders have turned African American leadership after Martin Luther King Jr. into a fuckin' joke? First it was O.J, then Michael Vick, and now Jena 6.
Let me tell you something, if MLK was still alive today by no means he would defend a criminal. All he would ask for is for a fair trial.

It doesn't matter for what reasons those 6 kids were provoked. It doesn't matter if this kid that was nearly beaten up to death was a white supremacist. What matters is that those 6 kids took justice in their own hands when they should have reported the incident with the nooses to higher authorities.

Let's not forget that the white kids are also guilty of a lesser crime, but a crime nonetheless.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr.Jingles wrote:

All he would ask for is for a fair trial.


...which, incidentally, they aren't getting in the heart of the Confederate country. People, quit staring yourselves blind on the details and focus on the bigger picture: this is merely the explosion of deeper tensions which need to be mended before any progress can be made.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ThomasQuinn wrote:

If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.

We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.


Hold on a second, font color Crimson Quinn. It is you who is wrong here.

The Black kids went to school administrators asking for permission to sit in the White Zone. So whether you recognize the "rules of the Street" or not, those 6 kids knew:

1. exactly what they were biting off
2. Nooses had been hung there before
3. Nooses would be hung again
4. They could start an uprising by staging this

So maybe you should learn about Southern life before you start quoting Jim Crow laws, font color Quinn. You don't live here, and you, Sir, have no idea about this way of life. They can't teach you that in a classroom.

Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.



The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.



"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



But I digress; 'the blacks' attacked 'the whites' in the form of a group of upset, scared people who were not being rational attacking a defenseless person, who was nevertheless part of the group they were threatened by. Again, let me stress that we do not know if there was a provocation, so we cannot pass any judgement whatsoever over that.

[/quote]

While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.

What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



Then there is the justice system, which is the matter that is really important. The DA illegally held a suspect in custody. When his conviction had been overturned, and he was not released, the DA committed a CRIMINAL OFFENSE by refusing to release him. What his motives are, we can only guess about, but only one motive is truly believable: revenge. He was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group.



If what you say is true, then I concede that this is unjust, and that the DA should be criminally liable. Of course, your surmisation that "he was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group" is completely baseless, to say the least.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



Do not kid yourselves; Jim Crow-law is not dead, it has me


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote:

If you had much such idiotic remarks in a lecture at my university's history department, you would immediately been suspended for your blatant disregard of the main pillar of historical analysis: context.

We are talking about a crime committed by a group, yes. A crime. I will not deny that, nor do I wish to make but the slightest attempt to justify it. However, it was NOT unprovoked. It was, perhaps, for we don't know, not provoked by the victim. It was, however, provoked by the group the victim was a part of, consciously: the 'superior' whites. The group threatened and mocked the other group, blacks. Which is quite probably a nicer name than they will ever have been called by whites there.


Hold on a second, font color Crimson Quinn. It is you who is wrong here.

The Black kids went to school administrators asking for permission to sit in the White Zone. So whether you recognize the "rules of the Street" or not, those 6 kids knew:

1. exactly what they were biting off
2. Nooses had been hung there before
3. Nooses would be hung again
4. They could start an uprising by staging this

So maybe you should learn about Southern life before you start quoting Jim Crow laws, font color Quinn. You don't live here, and you, Sir, have no idea about this way of life. They can't teach you that in a classroom.


To summarize: "them blacks crossed white turf and knew what they was gettin' into. Serves 'em right, an' we don't care about injustice, we care only that we's afraid they'll start an uprising".

You squire, are defending bigotry. Apartheid. Jim Crow.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:


The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.


Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it.


"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.


Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed.


While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.


Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying.

What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.


And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write?


If what you say is true, then I concede that this is unjust, and that the DA should be criminally liable. Of course, your surmisation that "he was taking revenge for the crime against one from his group" is completely baseless, to say the least.


What I say is not only true, but verifyable. Go to CNN if you wish to check it. My "surmisation", as you call it, or "likely motive" as I call it, is as I explicitly stated no more than an educated guess, but the most probable one.


So apparently, based on nothing, you assume that white supremacy reigns supreme in this area. Despite your admittance that the media cannot fully inform us of the situation, I wonder how you can be so sure of this claim. I am not saying that your scenario is false, but I am saying that it is not based on any objective grounds. Only objectivism matters. Anything you assume or any scenarios you envision do not.


I'm lost for words. You make no sense whatsoever, I have completely proven everything you claim I haven't.


Since you seem to be easily confused concerning political affiliations, let me introduce myself. I am not conservative - I am classically liberal. You may better know my type as Libertarian. We operate under the premise of absolute negative fre


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I would just like to point out, for all of the people who are crying racism on behalf of the police department and the DA, that the prosecuting attorney in the case of Jena 6 is an African American; I believe the DA for the county is also African American. The Jena 6 are also African Americans.

I believe this is relevent information for the conversation....as it's clearly not a case of white power abusing these poor African American kids...the power in this case is also an African American.

Discuss


Formerly MHG
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 12:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:



Basically, what you are saying, is that drawing swastikas in a synagogue gives a gang of Jews the right to jump the nearest gentile, rendering him unconscious?


No, he is not. And you are intentionally making a crooked comparison here. This is highly unprofessional and biased, as you are currently attempting to draw on emotional associations to cover up the gravity of the context (see my previous post).



Perhaps you can point out how my comparison is not parallel?

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



I might almost (but I still wouldn't) sympathize if they beat up the kids who were responsible for the nooses, but they didn't.


You have betrayed a little of your true stance here, but we shan't go into that now, as it'd just get tedious. As I stated, it is unknown if there was a provocation, and there were very real (though definitely not proper) reasons why this attack took place (again, see my above post).



My true stance? If you break the law, you will be prosecuted and punished under the law by the criminal justice system. There was no legal justification for the attacks. The end.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



I might almost sympathize if it was a fair fight. But instead, this kid was preemptively jumped by 1...2...3...4...5...6 students. Listen, kids, hate speech is not an excuse to beat people up. The only acceptable reason for beating someone up is if they are assaulting you. The only acceptable reason for preemptively beating someone up with five of your buddies is...well, maybe if you're fighting the Juggernaut.


Nobody is defending the attack, you are just making it sound like we are, because you would have to face the core of the problem if you admitted to that simple fact. And you wouldn't want that, for the reasons I explained in the last two paragraphs of my previous post.



No one is defending the attack? Then what is this conversation about? If this conversation focused strictly on the miscarriages of justice, then so be it. You made a perfectly valid point (although I haven't verified it, it was a good point) concerning the injustice committed by the DA before. If this conversation were about that, that would be good. However, since most of the conversations is revolving around justification of the attack, it's simply ludicrous.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



Secondly, there are no 20-odd-year prison sentences. The main suspect is being tried again as a juvenile. It might be a gross mishandling of justice if this was not the case (then again, it might not have been) - but it is the case.


Again, see above for the true mishandling of justice. Again, shame on your unprofessional stance for drawing away attention from the main theme by treating a figure of speech as literal when you know very well that it isn't. You're just using it as an excuse to pretend that you really replied to the heart of the matter of that piece of the post.


I was discrediting a previous accusation of a mishandling of justice. The main theme is the mishandling of justice. So far, the only point given in the entire thread up until that point was that concerning the 20-year prison sentences. I quickly discredited that claim, and I simply await more, to either verify or disprove. The theme is clear, and you simply have not gotten to it. There is only this: Was there a mishandling of justice? What are the specific examples? How can they be rectified? The end.

<b><font color = "crimson"> Thomas



Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 13:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:


The question is whether or not the context is relevant. Does the context justify the crime? Let us analyze. We must ask, under what circumstances is such an assault valid under the law? The assault is justified if it was in self-defense. Were the six students in immediate danger from the student they beat up? No. Was the amount of force they used reasonable to remove the students from an immediately threatening situation? No, not only were they not in such a situation, but a six-on-one assault is, by all means, excessive. Was the student assaulted in order to prevent a crime, or to defend one's property? No. Was the assault consensual? Doesn't seem like it. The only context that is relevant is the context that pertains to one of those defenses. History is not being analyzed in this case - only the guilt or innocence of six students.


Nobody was justifying any crime. You did not read my post, of you deliberately ignored it.



There is no point to enlisting the "reasons" for a crime, aside from trying to justify it. Unless you are just telling us a story, like we can find on CourtTV or America's Most Wanted. Then okay, I suppose. The only issues are these: Were there any miscarriages of justice? What were they? How can they be addressed? Stay on topic.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



"Provocation," aside from being a weak - if not completely insufficient - defense, could not possibly involve actions performed by persons who are affiliated by the victim only by race. If this were true, then like I said, Jews who have had their synagogues defaced would be justified in gang beating a gentile. This is not the case. Provocation is a personal issue, not a social one.


Read again, if you are capable of it. No defense. Merely registering context, and deriving that we are dealing with the necessary eruption of friction deriving from an injust system that is causing opposition among the oppressed.



Why is the system unjust? You never go into any of that. You merely point out that there were racial tensions.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



While it is true that we do not know if there was any direct provocation, it's ridiculous to rationalize such an attack with "racial tensions," of which we cannot even determine to what degree they existed.


Excuse me? "White tree", nooses? Or are you telling me that if I hold a book under your nose, I have not proven the existence of writing? There are racial tensions, period. Denying this is lying.


There were obviously racial tensions. I was only saying, we do not know to what degree there were. Was it just a couple of kids hanging nooses, or was each group constantly and physically threatened by the other? Perhaps it was only argumentative. If the environment calls for random, unjustifiable attacks - then that is a clear "reason" for this crime. If it is relatively peaceful, then this crime is truly unusual.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:



What isn't true is this: 'blacks' did not attack 'whites.' Six students unjustifiably (even if it was provoked) attacked a single student. This is the case in the eyes of the law.


And I already mentioned in the first part of my first post that this was a crime, and that I would not wish to defend it under any circumstance, and thus wouldn't. I also explicitly made clear that I would be speaking about the CAUSES of this crime, which is not even similar to justifying it. Are you really incapable of reading what I write?



Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 Sep 07, 13:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If you take anything from my posts, take this:

The only relevant question to address is this: What were the mishandlings of justice in this case?

There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others. Period. In this case, it is whether or not justice was effectively and fairly imparted.

Hopefully this helps to set the theme for a relevant conversations.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.