Thousands rally to support "Jena 6"

[ruksak]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary They didn't exactly have all the time in the world, it was in a crowd, from what I've read, and the injuries were enough, his face was extremely swollen and he suffered a concussion, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't do that kind of damage to someone, excluding in self defense, unless I intended to kill them. Of course, it could've been meant to simply intimidate him or whatever, but I would still charge the highest level of assault I can find.

Ohhh..c'mon man. I've seen so many dudes get knocked the f**k out. I've seen much worse outcomes in a fight, and then watched the two guys smoke a joint together afterward. Attempted murder, my ass!

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak Ohhh..c'mon man. I've seen so many dudes get knocked the f**k out. I've seen much worse outcomes in a fight, and then watched the two guys smoke a joint together afterward. Attempted murder, my ass!

That's a poor comparison. There's a difference between two guys fighting, and 6 guys jumping one guy and stomping him into the ground.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 That's a poor comparison. There's a difference between two guys fighting, and 6 guys jumping one guy and stomping him into the ground.

Getting your ass kicked is getting your ass kicked. No matter the number of assailants, the fair nature of the fight, or whether or not you had a chance to win. He was beaten pretty seriously, but it would seem to me that either life threating injuries must be sustained or a deadly weapon must be used. Shoes are not a deadly weapon.

Thats "reaching" a bit, don't ya think?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ruksak You're wrong. Have you ever heard of TP'ing? Toilet papering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Its against the law in all 50 states. Its termed as vandalism. Vandalism is the intentional destruction or defacing of public or private property.

And what law school did you go to that taught you this?

Vandalism is defined differently in every state's penal code. In Louisiana, the applicable statutes are as follows:

Quote by: Simple Criminal Damage to Property Simple criminal damage to property is the intentional damaging of any property of another, without the consent of the owner, and except as provided in R.S. 14:55, by any means other than fire or explosion.

There was no damage done.

Then there is the criminal mischief statute and its subsections, many of which deal with interfering with the use of property somehow, which displaying a noose on a tree does not do in and of itself. The graffiti statutes all deal with graffiti specifically.

A crime was committed. It was clearly racially motivated. It could have been prosecuted and termed as a hate crime.

According to the Louisiana statutes, there simply was no crime committed when a noose was hung from a tree.

Furthermore, there are Constitutional problems. If the students who hung nooses from the tree did so to communicate a particular idea (i.e. that blacks are not welcome), that idea could be considered protected speech - even the act of cross burning was upheld as protected speech in the Supreme Court's R.A.V. case in 1992.

Unless you are prepared to tell me that defacing property is legal in LA, then I would suggest you rephrase your above statement.

There is no specific statute for defacing property other than specifically graffiti. Ordinarily, damaging property would be the applicable crime, but it hasn't happened.

One of the "Jena 6" is still facing attempted murder.

Umm, because he hasn't been arraigned yet. The DA is going to drop the charges at least to where they were before, but he hasn't had the chance to yet. The DA can't withdraw charges in a vacuum, it is done in front of a judge at a court proceeding. The next time that defendant is in court, at his arraignment, the charges will be reduced.

You're either lying or ignorant of the facts. They didn't lower the charges until the outside world heard tell of the racial inequality being exercised so grossly in Jena. Thats when they had their "change of heart".

Regardless of the timing, your reasoning has no support in any actions or words of the District Attorney's office.

Try to refrain from basing your arguments on pure speculation.

Mykal Bell WAS convicted, BY AN ALL WHITE JURY. That fact alone, is messed.

Of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit battery, which was overturned. Aggravated battery is an easy charge to make in this situation.

Quote by: LSA-R.S. 14:34 Aggravated battery is a battery committed with a dangerous weapon.

Quote by: LSA-R.S. 14:33 Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another; or the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another.

So if the defendants used force or violence on the white kid, and there is pretty much no question they did, the only thing left to prove for aggravated battery is that they used a deadly weapon. Is a "tennis shoe" a dangerous weapon under the statutes?

Obviously, you guys have the same question.

Quote by: ruksak He was beaten pretty seriously, but it would seem to me that either life threating injuries must be sustained or a deadly weapon must be used. Shoes are not a deadly weapon. Thats "reaching" a bit, don't ya think?

Quote by: Mia The fact remains that if the DA could stretch the meaning of 'weapon' to make a tennis shoe constitute one, he could have construed a statute to cover noose hanging as a crime.

Fortunately, the Louisiana appeals courts have already spoken on this issue:

Quote by: Louisiana Court of Appeals Rubber-soled tennis shoe which defendant was wearing when he kicked his victim constituted a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of committing aggravated battery; eyewitness testified that defendant kicked victim in head so forcefully that impact lifted victim's body off ground and physician who operated on victim characterized victim's attack as brutal. State v. Munoz, App. 5 Cir.1991, 575 So.2d 848, writ denied 577 So.2d 1009.

And Mia,

1) The DA wasn't "stretching" the meaning of a dangerous weapon - he was following the law. He is bound by the above court case which says in no uncertain terms that tennis shoe = dangerous weapon.

2) DA's are not in the business of "stretching" and "construing" statutes to make angry mobs happy. They look at an act, apply the statutes by the numbers, and charge what there is probable cause to charge. The fact that you feel the DA could bend the law to fit the circumstances means you need a better understanding and appreciation of our justice system's built-in protections for citizens.

An appeals court threw out his conviction, stating that he should never have been in adult court. The aggravated battery charge is what bumped him into adult court, thus the appeals court was essentially saying that charge was not appropriate.

Incorrect. The appeals court threw out the charge of conspiracy to commit battery, but left the aggravated battery charge in place.
'Jena Six' defendant faces 15 years now, not 22 :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation

Ruksak, the appeals court was all-white jury too :-),

sigh... an appeals court does not have a jury. It has judges.

Don't schools teach civics anymore?

[ruksak]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Rubber-soled tennis shoe which defendant was wearing when he kicked his victim constituted a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of committing aggravated battery; eyewitness testified that defendant kicked victim in head so forcefully that impact lifted victim's body off ground and physician who operated on victim characterized victim's attack as brutal. State v. Munoz, App. 5 Cir.1991, 575 So.2d 848, writ denied 577 So.2d 1009.

I know I heard this argument made before in regards to a skinhead that used steel-toe boots to kick a man to death. As mentioned however, he killed a guy.

Also, the date at the bottom of that says 1991, and I also see where it says "writ denied" and "State vs. Munoz"? Whats the source of this quote so that it may be kept in context? When citing precedent, I want the source.
I have a hard time believing common, nondescript rubber soled athletic shoes have the necessary qualifications to be qualified as deadly weapons.

I mean, a Nerf bat could be a deadly weapon if you strangle some one with it. A pillow is if you smoother someone. But I don't see the intent of deadly force when kicking someone with common sneakers.

I am intrigued at the legal aspects of this, and you seem quite knowledgeable. I'd love to get in a little deeper, but I have to cut this short and get to bed.

Quote by: Tivo Don't schools teach civics anymore?

Now c'mon. I know this wasn't directed at me but.......Thats a bit much ain't it? Expecting people to remember obscure facts about appealant courts for 20 years is a bit snotty of you. Dismount from your high horse and be fair about this. Seriously. I'm sure you impress yourself an awful lot, but bare in mind the average debate forum member isn't real well versed in all aspects of law. You sounded a bit smug and condescending.

[Mia]

It was actually a slip of the tongue,,,,,, or fingers, as the case may be. I do happen to know that appellate courts do not have juries.

:-)

An aside comment anyway, not really part of the meat of this discussion.

More to the point, Tivodan, you didn't read far enough:

Sept. 4: A judge drops the conspiracy conviction. Sept. 14: A state appeals court overturns Mr. Bell’s remaining conviction, ruling that he should not have been tried as an adult. His case will go back to juvenile court.

I was incorrect that aggravated battery allowed him to be tried in adult court, for that he would have had to use a firearm under LA law.

The attempted murder the DA chose to pursue is what had him in adult court.

[gratefuldawg77]

Quote by: spudnicks I am probably younger than alot of you, and thus know a lot mroe about High School these days. I think all students involved deserve the maximum punishment. This was obviously a black gang that beat this white student up, and the white students that hung the nooses is obviously a gang. Im guessing that these students have bullied/beat up and harrassed other students in the school for some time. When these kids grow up they are going to be trash. I think they should all be put away for a long time.

Officially, the best summation of this whole thread. "When these kids grow up they are going to be trash." If I had a vote, I would put all the white racist punks and black racist punks into a battle royal. Let them kill each other off as both a favor to the gene pool and a demonstration to all the Christo-fascists in the area of natural selection.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ruksak Also, the date at the bottom of that says 1991, and I also see where it says "writ denied" and "State vs. Munoz"? Whats the source of this quote so that it may be kept in context? When citing precedent, I want the source.

Sorry, I used a bit of legalize there for shorthand purposes.

State v. Munoz is a case in Louisiana court, I was reading from the decision, which is cited as "575 So.2d 848". The case at this point was in the 5th Circuit Court of Louisiana, which is the intermediate appeals court (in between the trial courts and the highest court).
"writ denied" means that the loser in this case (the criminal defendant) appealed this decision to the highest court in Louisiana, the Supreme Court. "writ denied" means that the Supreme Court took a look at the 5th Circuit's opinion and said, "nah, they got it right, there's no point in us hearing it". So in effect, that case is the law of the land.

I have a hard time believing common, nondescript rubber soled athletic shoes have the necessary qualifications to be qualified as deadly weapons.

Well, the statute is "dangerous", not "deadly", but I have the same hard time. In NY, dangerous weapons are enumerated in a list, so there's no room for interpretation. LA is different I guess.

By the way, "Munoz" in this case was a 17 year old who was sentenced to 10 years in jail for this beating, and the court found that this was not excessive in part 2 of their decision...

Now c'mon. I know this wasn't directed at me but.......Thats a bit much ain't it? Expecting people to remember obscure facts about appealant courts for 20 years is a bit snotty of you. Dismount from your high horse and be fair about this. Seriously. I'm sure you impress yourself an awful lot, but bare in mind the average debate forum member isn't real well versed in all aspects of law. You sounded a bit smug and condescending.

True, I withdraw the statement - no harm meant.

Although, you can see an appeals court every once in a while on Law and Order

Quote by: gratefuldawg77 Officially, the best summation of this whole thread. "When these kids grow up they are going to be trash." If I had a vote, I would put all the white racist punks and black racist punks into a battle royal. Let them kill each other off as both a favor to the gene pool and a demonstration to all the Christo-fascists in the area of natural selection.

As much as my sense of justice is holding me back, I can't say i disagree with this...

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Don't schools teach civics anymore?

I don't think they do - at least my daughter (now a high school senior) has never mentioned it.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Tivodan Sorry, I used a bit of legalize there for shorthand purposes. State v. Munoz is a case in Louisiana court, I was reading from the decision, which is cited as "575 So.2d 848". The case at this point was in the 5th Circuit Court of Louisiana, which is the intermediate appeals court (in between the trial courts and the highest court). "writ denied" means that the loser in this case (the criminal defendant) appealed this decision to the highest court in Louisiana, the Supreme Court. "writ denied" means that the Supreme Court took a look at the 5th Circuit's opinion and said, "nah, they got it right, there's no point in us hearing it". So in effect, that case is the law of the land.

I see. Yea, I'm not fluent in legal speak.

Although, you can see an appeals court every once in a while on Law and Order

I only watch sports, news and documentaries.

Well, the statute is "dangerous", not "deadly", but I have the same hard time. In NY, dangerous weapons are enumerated in a list, so there's no room for interpretation. LA is different I guess.

It just seems they would need to prove intent in order to charge with attempted murder. Either by verbally expressing the desire to kill, or by use of a deadly weapon. Excessive force could be as well, but the injuries in this case don't seem severe enough to indicate a true effort or intent to kill.

I will have to remember to take my shoes off next time I get in a fight.

[Mia]

Quote by: Mia It was actually a slip of the tongue,,,,,, or fingers, as the case may be. I do happen to know that appellate courts do not have juries. :-)

...

[Mia]

Quote by: ruksak I will have to remember to take my shoes off next time I get in a fight.

That won't work, in TX, fingers can be considered dangerous weapons. I suppose toes could as well.........

[Praxius]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The white kids should have definitely have gotten a stiff kick rather than a slap in the wrist, especially with all this white supremacist talk, but that doesn't make the assaulters any less criminals, nor does it make 6 on one beating until unconcious any less attempted murder.

Exactly... and frustration at the general situation is no excuse to resort to violence such as this.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mia That won't work, in TX, fingers can be considered dangerous weapons. I suppose toes could as well.........

Heck, arn't your toenail clippers a weapon on airplanes now?

Be careful..... I might make a giant Paper sword and paper cut you all to death

[Heather]

Quote by: ruksak Thats "reaching" a bit, don't ya think?

Kicked to Death

Kicked to Death

No, how could it be “reaching” in any way, shape, or form. Intent is intent.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Heather Kicked to Death Kicked to Death No, how could it be “reaching” in any way, shape, or form. Intent is intent.

Pffffft.

Did the Jena 6 kill anybody? Nope. Did the victim even come close to death? Nope. As a matter of fact, he attended a party after he got out of the hospital a few hours after the "attempted murder".

Don't waste your time or mine by posting unrelated material.

[Heather]

Quote by: ruksak Pffffft. Did the Jena 6 kill anybody? Nope. Did the victim even come close to death? Nope. As a matter of fact, he attended a party after he got out of the hospital a few hours after the "attempted murder".

You're right, no one was killed, hence the original charges of attempted murder, not murder. This kid was also beat into unconsciousness, at which point they continued to beat him. For all these "Jena 6" kids knew, he was already dead. I think that alone says something about their intent regardless of the extent of the injuries sustained.

Quote by: ruksak Don't waste your time or mine by posting unrelated material.

I was making a valid point that you were incorrect regarding the threat of shoes. I call that related material.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Heather You're right, no one was killed, hence the original charges of attempted murder, not murder. This kid was also beat into unconsciousness, at which point they continued to beat him. For all these "Jena 6" kids knew, he was already dead. I think that alone says something about their intent regardless of the extent of the injuries sustained. I was making a valid point that you were incorrect regarding the threat of shoes. I call that related material.

Bare feet are far deadlier than are tennis shoe covered feet. The shoes only pad the blows. Therefor the consideration of shoes as weapons is asinine. Thier feet were the weapons, not the shoes.
If I punch a man unconcious, my hands are the weapon utilized. If I wear a pair of gloves, do the gloves somehow become the weapon?

[Mia]

Quote by: Heather Kicked to Death Kicked to Death No, how could it be “reaching” in any way, shape, or form. Intent is intent.

And in what manner was the intent to kill established?

[Heather]

Quote by: Mia And in what manner was the intent to kill established?

Four days after the arson, several students jumped a white classmate, Justin Barker, knocking him unconscious before stomping and kicking him. Source: CNN

I think it's a reasonably arguable point that if one is "stomping and kicking" someone after they are already unconscious that their intent could easily be interpreted as extremely serious. If a person is clearly unconscious one cannot know the extent of injuries already sustained, and in this case they of coarse didn't know, yet continued to "stomp and kick". As I sited above, one can be killed in this fashion. To me the fact that this kid they were beating was already unconscious with unknowable injuries and yet they continued to stomp and kick clearly shows intent to do malicious harm.