Jena 6

Doc_Jude

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
36
Location
Southern Kalifornia
Question: If six black individuals stomp a white individual into unconsciousness and beyond, is it a hate crime?

School Superintendent Breithaupt said:
"It was a premeditated ambush and attack by six students against one. The victim attacked was beaten and kicked into a state of bloody unconsciousness."
 

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,212
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern California
Question: If six black individuals stomp a white individual into unconsciousness and beyond, is it a hate crime?
Some don't seem to think so, but reverse the circumstances and Oh my God. Some seem to think that Blacks cannot be "racist," only the victims of racism. Question: Whose more racist, Black or Whites? Oops!
 

Doc_Jude

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
36
Location
Southern Kalifornia
Some don't seem to think so, but reverse the circumstances and Oh my God. Some seem to think that Blacks cannot be "racist," only the victims of racism. Question: Whose more racist, Black or Whites? Oops!

I'd say it's entirely subjective (individuals or groups). Of course, there's a difference between Racial Pride, Racialism and Racism.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Yeah but, apparently he isn't learning any of them.

I think Mr. Purvis learned, plenty.
It may not have been the lessons we thought we were teaching.

Unintended consequences, and all that.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
What were the lessons that he learned???

5-0 Kenpo, I sort of doubt that this is a serious question of my opinion; but I am going to treat it as a serious question anyway.

This story is true:

Last fall, I went out to my drive way, and found that someone had vandalized my car. Along the door, quarter panel, and hardtop of my Jeep, someone had scratched the words "Fag" and "Biggot" through the paint.

My step daughter had earlier made a ranting post on her myspace page about how her father is a bigot. Apparently, someone who knows my girl, thought that she was ranting about me, and not her biological father.


Well, I was pretty upset. The repair on my vehicle cost me close to $800.00. But, when I discovered the vandalism, I was pretty hot.

You know what I did?

I called the police. A nice young man came by, and took a statement. He asked if I was gay; apparently being gay might have qualified the vandalism to be considered a 'hate crime'; because of the use of the term 'fag'. That was a bit puzzling to me, because if the vandal hated homosexuals; does it really matter if I am or not?


Now ... Let us turn to young Mr. Purvis. What interactions has he had with the police department? What interactions has he had with the legal system?

He may (or may not) have been invovled in a school yard fight.
He was thrown in jail for months, because bail was set prohibitively high.
He was charged with murder and faced decades of time in jail.

So, when somebody vandalises his automobile ~ for the second time in a week ~ do you honestly believe he is going to call the police?

I think one of the lessons Mr. Purvis may have learned; is that the police are not part of the community to protect and to serve; the police are not going to help you, even when you are wronged.

The whole situation is incredibly sad.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
5-0 Kenpo, I sort of doubt that this is a serious question of my opinion; but I am going to treat it as a serious question anyway.

This story is true:

Last fall, I went out to my drive way, and found that someone had vandalized my car. Along the door, quarter panel, and hardtop of my Jeep, someone had scratched the words "Fag" and "Biggot" through the paint.

My step daughter had earlier made a ranting post on her myspace page about how her father is a bigot. Apparently, someone who knows my girl, thought that she was ranting about me, and not her biological father.


Well, I was pretty upset. The repair on my vehicle cost me close to $800.00. But, when I discovered the vandalism, I was pretty hot.

You know what I did?

I called the police. A nice young man came by, and took a statement. He asked if I was gay; apparently being gay might have qualified the vandalism to be considered a 'hate crime'; because of the use of the term 'fag'. That was a bit puzzling to me, because if the vandal hated homosexuals; does it really matter if I am or not?


Now ... Let us turn to young Mr. Purvis. What interactions has he had with the police department? What interactions has he had with the legal system?

He may (or may not) have been invovled in a school yard fight.
He was thrown in jail for months, because bail was set prohibitively high.
He was charged with murder and faced decades of time in jail.

So, when somebody vandalises his automobile ~ for the second time in a week ~ do you honestly believe he is going to call the police?

I think one of the lessons Mr. Purvis may have learned; is that the police are not part of the community to protect and to serve; the police are not going to help you, even when you are wronged.

The whole situation is incredibly sad.

In the case of Mr. Purvis, according to the story, he assumed that the person he assaulted was the one who damaged his car, yet he really didn't know. In your situation, it seems that while you've narrowed it to someone who read the myspace page, you don't know who did the damage to your jeep. Now, you may know, I don't know, as you didn't say.

In any case, being angry is certainly a normal response. But, whether we know or don't know, the point is, is it right to take our actions to the point of what Purvis did? Now, if we look at this:

He may (or may not) have been invovled in a school yard fight.
He was thrown in jail for months, because bail was set prohibitively high.
He was charged with murder and faced decades of time in jail.

Do we know for a fact that we was/wasn't involved in the initial schoolyard fight?

I'm no legal expert, but I'd think that looking at the victims injuries in that case, I can see why bail was set high.

He controls his life. He chose to beat someone close to death.

Now, the reality is, vandalism on a small scale such as this...chances are, even if its reported, the odds of catching the accused is slim to none. I take calls all the time with people reporting their cars egged. I send a cop, but what is he going to do? A full scale investigation into an egging? Of course not. So, the common sense thing to do is to chalk it as a stupid thing done by someone with too much free time on their hands, and wash the car.

Purvis had 'bad' run ins with the police because of his own actions. He seems to feel the cops don't like him, and I'm sure that feeling is going to grow now that he's had another run in.

Sure, I'd be pissed off too, had that been my car, but would I beat them? Well, as tempting as it may be, where is that going to get me? This is along the same lines as trying to talk your way out of a fight first, before blows are exchanged. I'm not going to go to jail if I talk my way out, but I'll probably have to take some time off from work, if I elbow the guy and knock a few teeth out.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Mike, the accusations around the original six involved in Jena are sketchy, at best. While there is little doubt about six young men were arrested and charged, there was quite a bit of doubt about how those six were originally named.

At this point, people's opinions have been formed, and solidified. New facts don't have any point of entry on that issue.

I'm just saying, more and more, I am coming to believe that calling the police for help is a bad idea.
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Mike, the accusations around the original six involved in Jena are sketchy, at best. While there is little doubt about six young men were arrested and charged, there was quite a bit of doubt about how those six were originally named.

Looks like my original link the the story has expired, and I hate the thought of combing thru all these pages to find another, but out of curiosity, do you or anyone else happen to recall how they got named? I can only assume from witnesses or the victim(s) themselves.

I'm just saying, more and more, I am coming to believe that calling the police for help is a bad idea.

Trust me, many times I field calls from citizens that either were not happy with the actions or comments of the officer that was sent to take their complaint and from those that try and try and try to get in touch with an officer investigating their case, yet they avoid the citizens call like the plague. Sure, some citizens can be major PITAS, but nonetheless, the cop took that job and he should do it to its fullest.

So it looks like there are 2 options then:

1) Call the cops or..

2) don't call and take your own action.
 

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,212
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern California
5-0 Kenpo, I sort of doubt that this is a serious question of my opinion; but I am going to treat it as a serious question anyway.

This story is true:

Last fall, I went out to my drive way, and found that someone had vandalized my car. Along the door, quarter panel, and hardtop of my Jeep, someone had scratched the words "Fag" and "Biggot" through the paint.

My step daughter had earlier made a ranting post on her myspace page about how her father is a bigot. Apparently, someone who knows my girl, thought that she was ranting about me, and not her biological father.


Well, I was pretty upset. The repair on my vehicle cost me close to $800.00. But, when I discovered the vandalism, I was pretty hot.

You know what I did?

I called the police. A nice young man came by, and took a statement. He asked if I was gay; apparently being gay might have qualified the vandalism to be considered a 'hate crime'; because of the use of the term 'fag'. That was a bit puzzling to me, because if the vandal hated homosexuals; does it really matter if I am or not?


Now ... Let us turn to young Mr. Purvis. What interactions has he had with the police department? What interactions has he had with the legal system?

He may (or may not) have been invovled in a school yard fight.
He was thrown in jail for months, because bail was set prohibitively high.
He was charged with murder and faced decades of time in jail.

So, when somebody vandalises his automobile ~ for the second time in a week ~ do you honestly believe he is going to call the police?

I think one of the lessons Mr. Purvis may have learned; is that the police are not part of the community to protect and to serve; the police are not going to help you, even when you are wronged.

The whole situation is incredibly sad.

Yes it is sad. Sad that somehow you think your story has something to do with the situation of Mr. Purvis. You're as much of a problem as he is. People like you who make excuses for thugs reinforce their warped since of justice, and right and wrong. Its support of people like you that allow them to not feel accountable for their own actions.

Purvis has a problem with authority of any kind, not just the justice system. He finds himself involved with the justice system because of his own repeated behavior. Yes, he had priors even before the Jena incident. It's called a "pattern." A pattern of behavior that apparently according to you is not his fault.

Bad behavior is without color. I grew up in those neighborhoods, and I knew the thugs that preyed on other people. Color didn't matter to them, as long as they got what they wanted and did what they wanted to do, and always passed the blame to "the system." "It's the man's fault I steal." "It's the systems fault I'm a criminal." "I'll beat down anyone who gets in my way, and its their fault."

Funny how no one heard from you when they were railroading the students from Duke University, but then they were white. I am utterly, totally, and completely insulted by your idiotic statements.

Perhaps your position will change when one of these thugs you excuse, bangs one of your children's head into a bench, because of something someone told him. At least then, you'd be on the moral high ground, but making excuses when other people are being physically injured, makes you just as much of a problem as the thugs that do it in my book. I'm in the trenches with these people you support everyday, and it's absolutely condescending garbage.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Mike,

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855152&postcount=113

This post has a link to some of the discrepencies in witness testimony. Certainly, the victim in the Jena 6 case clearly stated that he did not see who hit him.

I'm sure there are other stories that reflect the discrepencies as well.



If there are two options ... I would say that Mr. Purvis learned that the second option was the best option for him. That may or may not be a good lesson ... but, I think denying that it was a lesson learned is difficult, at best.
 

Grenadier

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
616
ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level.

Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486.

Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile).

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Super Moderator
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Mike,

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855152&postcount=113

This post has a link to some of the discrepencies in witness testimony. Certainly, the victim in the Jena 6 case clearly stated that he did not see who hit him.

I'm sure there are other stories that reflect the discrepencies as well.



If there are two options ... I would say that Mr. Purvis learned that the second option was the best option for him. That may or may not be a good lesson ... but, I think denying that it was a lesson learned is difficult, at best.

Thanks for the link. Yes, like anything, there're always going to be discrepencies. Look at how many times someone is wrongfully accused and spends time in jail for a crime they didn't do.

Now, it does seem in this case that some of the parties involved were in fact guilty of the assault.

As for whether or not this was the best option for Purvis...I still have to disagree. In the original story, I don't recall ever reading if they found out who hung the nooses from the tree. So, did they just assault the first white student that they came across? Just like in this case, Purvis obviously assaulted the first person he thought was guilty.
 

SageGhost83

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
454
Reaction score
49
Location
Virginia
I am a minority, so you can guess that I have been forced to hear this story over and over and over...you get the point. I am sorry - if you put your hands on someone then you have crossed the line and you are guilty of assault, no bones about it. Hanging nooses was a very stupid and offensive thing to do, and whoever did it should be charged with a hate crime. However, putting your hands on someone when they didn't put their hands on you is a definite no-no and can even be considered a hate crime in and of itself due to the high probability that they did go and beat the first white kid that they could find. A gesture versus an actual assault? Which is more serious? someone's pride or someone's physical well-being? I hope that they get punished to the fullest extent of the law, and I hope that whoever hung the nooses get charged with a hate crime.
 

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,212
Reaction score
158
Location
Southern California
I am a minority, so you can guess that I have been forced to hear this story over and over and over...you get the point. I am sorry - if you put your hands on someone then you have crossed the line and you are guilty of assault, no bones about it. Hanging nooses was a very stupid and offensive thing to do, and whoever did it should be charged with a hate crime. However, putting your hands on someone when they didn't put their hands on you is a definite no-no and can even be considered a hate crime in and of itself due to the high probability that they did go and beat the first white kid that they could find. A gesture versus an actual assault? Which is more serious? someone's pride or someone's physical well-being? I hope that they get punished to the fullest extent of the law, and I hope that whoever hung the nooses get charged with a hate crime.
Hanging a noose can be offensive, but it is not against the law. The students that did it were suspended, and were only allowed to return after 10 days in a transition school. The incident with the nooses was two months prior, and was only brought up to justify the actions of some who acted badly. There were other circumstances as well. Bottom line, when you put your hands on another person, you have to accept the consequences whether you like them or not. People don't get to choose their own punishment for their actions. When you commit crimes, you put yourself in the hands of others. No system is perfect because it's made of human beings, and therefore are flawed. The cure, is to keep your hands in your pocket and your feet on the floor.

I also stand by my previous statement and found nothing wrong with expressing my opinion in a respectful manner.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
5-0 Kenpo, I sort of doubt that this is a serious question of my opinion; but I am going to treat it as a serious question anyway.

It is a serious question. You made a statment that Purvis had learned lessons, but did not express what you had though he had learned. In order to agree with or refute your statement, I have to know what lessons you believe that he had learned.

michaeledward said:
This story is true:

Last fall, I went out to my drive way, and found that someone had vandalized my car. Along the door, quarter panel, and hardtop of my Jeep, someone had scratched the words "Fag" and "Biggot" through the paint.

My step daughter had earlier made a ranting post on her myspace page about how her father is a bigot. Apparently, someone who knows my girl, thought that she was ranting about me, and not her biological father.


Well, I was pretty upset. The repair on my vehicle cost me close to $800.00. But, when I discovered the vandalism, I was pretty hot.

You know what I did?

I called the police. A nice young man came by, and took a statement. He asked if I was gay; apparently being gay might have qualified the vandalism to be considered a 'hate crime'; because of the use of the term 'fag'. That was a bit puzzling to me, because if the vandal hated homosexuals; does it really matter if I am or not?

This statement is telling of your knowledge not only of police, but of the legal system as well.

"Fag" is a term in general usage. It is used in jest, it is used as a general insult, and it is also a derogatory term for homosexuals.

Now, for it to be a hate crime, per the legal process, the person making the statement of "fag" must know that you are in fact a homosexual. That was the necessity for the officer asking the question. Legally, it is not a hate crime if it was not done with the specific task of making you fear for your safety for being a part of that particular group. Therefore, if you are not gay, he was simply being insulting, akin to him scratching "a**hole" on your car.

Now, if you have a problem with this, your beef is with the legislators and the court system, not the police.

As an aside, this is why I despise hate crime legislation in the first place. It is too arbitrary and capricious.

I also understand that you are using this story to show an example of "lessons learned." But I am also going to assume, correct me if I am wrong, that you do know the significant differences in the two cases.

michaeledward said:
Now ... Let us turn to young Mr. Purvis. What interactions has he had with the police department? What interactions has he had with the legal system?

He may (or may not) have been invovled in a school yard fight.
He was thrown in jail for months, because bail was set prohibitively high.
He was charged with murder and faced decades of time in jail.

So, when somebody vandalises his automobile ~ for the second time in a week ~ do you honestly believe he is going to call the police?

I think one of the lessons Mr. Purvis may have learned; is that the police are not part of the community to protect and to serve; the police are not going to help you, even when you are wronged.

The whole situation is incredibly sad.

As has been stated, Purvis had been involved in the wrong side of the law before the Jena incident. He has already shown the propensity for being violent and and a criminal. This is merely a continuation of his behavior in this regards.

Do I believe that Purvis has learned lessons of not calling the police? Absolutely. And it is based on his own actions, criminal actions. Criminals are not likely to call the police, even if they are victims.

As an example, in the metropolitan Los Angeles area, I have been involved in the investigation of many gang shootings / homicides. Even when the suspects are known by them, the gangsters refuse to give information as to their identity. They would rather take matters into their own hands. Street justice, if you will. Purvis' case is yet another example of this.

And it is very sad that people do not change their negative behavior when confronted with the consequences. You may be correct that he may have learned the lesson that "is that the police are not part of the community to protect and to serve; the police are not going to help you, even when you are wronged..." but he learned the wrong information.

If I tell you 2+2 = 4, and you continue to believe that it is 5, there is nothing anyone can do for you.
 

SageGhost83

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
454
Reaction score
49
Location
Virginia
Hanging a noose can be offensive, but it is not against the law. The students that did it were suspended, and were only allowed to return after 10 days in a transition school. The incident with the nooses was two months prior, and was only brought up to justify the actions of some who acted badly.

I see, and you are definitely correct. I stand corrected, myself. I was thinking more along the lines of that whole hate speech thing, but the action isn't exactly "speech". We are in agreement that regardless of the noose, what those guys did was criminal no matter how you slice it. You cannot put your hands on someone just because they offended you. There is no way to justify what they did, and thus, I believe that the guys should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Whoever hung the noose received their punishment, so it is only right that the assaulters receive theirs.
 
Top