The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I have been hearing a lot about this lately, actually, I've mostly been hearing about how we haven't been hearing about it.  Oh, the irony.

Anyway, basically there is a school in Jena, LA in a small town that is apparently somewhat racially divided.  Some racial tension was taking place and 6 black students beat a white student unconscious, stomped on his head, and left him on the ground bleeding.  Those 6 were arrested and at first charged with battery.  Upon receiving the medical report (the kid was released from the hospital the same night) the charges were upgraded to attempted murder.  They tried to charge the kids as adults, the conviction on that note was over turned (beating up another kid is not an inherently adult crime).  The subsequent conviction was by an all white jury.

Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and others are now glorifying these kids along with Rosa Parks, victims of church bombings, and other civil rights martyrs.  They complained that the media did not cover this event enough... well now they are getting their wish:

1) The alleged "white-tree" was used by all students according to teachers, students and administrators actually at the school.  There would be no good reason to "ask permission" to sit under the tree at a assembly other than to instigate an incident.

2) The students who hung 2 (not three) nooses from the tree were sent to an alternative school for a month and had a 2 week in-school suspension (not suspended for "just three days" Mr. Sharpton).  Some argue that expulsion for such a  stupid act was more appropriate but...  

3) There was no connection between the tree incident and the beatings according to the Justice Department, who was looking into this as a hate crime (in which case the "Jena 6" would face federal charges as well as battery).

4) Bell, the convicted youth, was not "an honor student with no criminal record" as Sharpton claimed.  He is in fact on probation for 2 prior  battery convictions and additional property crimes.

5) The jury was indeed all white.  NONE of the black citizens summoned showed up for jury duty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena_3;_ylt=ApvcexcbjCKgxnvxcvoZglwkeedF
- - -

Whether or not the police handles this well ( often charges are increased to force a plea to a lesser charge, a practice that is removed from the current debate) or if they were flawed in past actions I can not attest to.  However, the basic facts are 6 kids beat another kid unconscious and then repeatedly kicked him in the head.

Is the civil rights movement in such a position as this is the most noble of cause that can be summoned?  Surely there are more sympathetic "victims" or perhaps victims that are not part of the problem nor criminals. What's more, if you are begging national media to pick up a story, shouldn't you get your own facts down (like maybe the fact that the primary "victim" who was arrested for battery has 2 prior convictions for battery)?  Every action the civil rights spokesmen have taken in the last decade has left me with less and less respect.

Things are apparently not racial roses in many parts of the country, but how does this help?  Either the nooses, the beats, or the protests have no positive effect that I can see.  I was just curious if others shared my sentiment or if I'm just a jerk.  

The crux of the racism argument is that the six offenders were treated more severely than another student who committed the same crime because of their race, when it's more likely the six were given harsher punishment because of the fact that there were six of them attacking one student.

This doesnt cause me to devalue the civil rights movement, because it's clear that snake-oil salesmen like Sharpton dont represent civil rights.

Oh, and here I was thinking the "Jena Six" was a new movie project Jenna Jamison was working on.

That would be more like "Jenna 12".

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

The crux of the racism argument is that the six offenders were treated more severely than another student who committed the same crime because of their race, when it's more likely the six were given harsher punishment because of the fact that there were six of them attacking one student.

This doesnt cause me to devalue the civil rights movement, because it's clear that snake-oil salesmen like Sharpton dont represent civil rights.

---

Is the public outcry on the behalf of the Jena 6 based on prosecutorial errors and misconduct, or true injustice, or is it because of the race of those accused of this offense?

Janyes, it is all of that.  Let us talk locally, though, about racial injustice.  When a Jenks child killed his friend after conducting a high-speed paintball game on the turnpike he was sentenced to a one-month house time-out.  When a 14-year-old girl was joy-riding and killed a neighbor she was charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

Wanna guess the races?

Tim, I see you haven't lost your penchant for being short on fact and long on emotion.  I believe it was vehicular manslaughter, not first degree murder.

There was so little information given there Tim I can not even start to research it...

Black guy killed 1895472389 people - 1 day.

White guy killed 6 - death sentence.

Injustice!  Without any actual information or references, your statement is equally worthless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Tim, I see you haven't lost your penchant for being short on fact and long on emotion.  I believe it was vehicular manslaughter, not first degree murder.

---

My bad. It is still an inequality.  The DA's rationale was hilarious: folk do not have the same expectation of safety on the highway as their neighborhood.  Sorry I get emotional about BS.  Sorry I get emotional about Shawn Howard and how the DA let a homocidal psychopath walk our streets because the DA did not think he could get a conviction.  Sorry I get emotional when I think of how a legal system corrupts justice.  The charge still meant she basically wanted to kill someone, but that the Trojan's vehicle basically lost control all on its own.

Sorry, CF that I am not as thorough as you are; you really do have very thought-out posts.  I just assume (yeah, I know 'assume') that most folk are up on my cryptic BS references.

<Tim wrote:

Sorry I get emotional about Shawn Howard and how the DA let a homocidal psychopath walk our streets because the DA did not think he could get a conviction.

<end clip>

The D.A. didn't prosecute at first because it was obviously self-defense.

After all, Howard *started* the fight.

With brass knuckles, no less.

Against an unarmed homeless guy.

What a saint.

And since Terry Badgwell pleaded no contest to manslaughter (which intimates a lack of premeditation), call him a homicidal maniac is realllllllly stretching the truth.

If you're going to rant about inequality, you need to come up with a better example than that.

And if you don't want people to get riled up about your "cryptic BS messages," then don't write BS.

I agree with the DA that 'a man's got a right to defend himself.'  But a man does not have the right to pummell someone who is defenseless on the ground no matter what the original offense was.  Further, Badgewell was in a psych unit just weeks before the killing.  So, a psychopathic killer was allowed to roam our streets all because someone in the DA's office wanted to claim victory.  A Grand Jury disagreed with the DA I do believe.

Paintball:

1) All parties involved in a joint criminal offense that put them at risk including the victim
2) The charges were brought against the other 3 parties involved:  include one count each of negligent homicide, propelling an object at a moving vehicle and reckless driving.

Negligent Homicide is:
No person may be convicted of negligent homicide unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, caused by the defendant's driving a vehicle upon a highway;

Third, in reckless disregard of the safety of others;

[Fourth, the death occurred within a year of the infliction of the injury causing death].

[Fifth, the defendant was 16 years of age or older].
OUJI-CR 4-105. 1999. 47 O.S. 1991, §§ 1-122, 11-903. http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?o=3 (Visited 09/26/2007

Other:

1) Solo actor put others at risk
2) Charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter:
No person may be convicted of manslaughter in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, occurring as a direct result of an act or event which happened in the commission of a misdemeanor;

Third, caused by [the defendant(s)]/[a person engaged with the defendant(s)] while in the commission of a misdemeanor;

Fourth, the elements of the [Specify Underlying Misdemeanor] defendant(s) is/are alleged to have been in the commission of are as follows: Driving at a reckless rate of speed or failure to maintain control of a vehicle.
OUJI-CR 4-94. 2000 Supp. http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?o=3 (Visited[/i] 09/26/2007)
- - -
[/i]
I did not look up sentencing info nor guidelines.  You are free to do so at OSCN.NET and inform me.  But the charges seem fair to me.