L.A. Times Flubs Facts of Jena 6 Case
The L.A. Times reports:
Racial trouble in Jena, La., started in September 2006 when three white students hung nooses from a tree. Six black teens who became known as the “Jena Six” were arrested on suspicion of attacking a white student accused of hanging the nooses.
Really?
That’s the first I’ve heard of that.
Justin Barker is the victim of the beating administered by the Jena 6. I have never read a single word in any article about this case that alleged that he was one of the students who hung the nooses.
Indeed, Donald Washington, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, concluded that there was no link between the hanging of the nooses and the Jena 6 beating. That would be quite an amazing conclusion if the victim of the beating was one of the people who had hung the nooses.
Either the L.A. Times has a major scoop on its hands, and buried the lede . . . or they screwed up.
Again.
You can guess which possibility I find more realistic.
Looks like it’s time for a correction. I have written the reporter and the Readers’ Representative.
(Thanks to Mark and Terry.)
UPDATE: I got a nice note from the reporter saying he’d take care of it. I feel kind of bad for having been snide about it in the post. (I was polite in my e-mail.) It’s a hangover from the Rutten stonewall, I think; I don’t expect these people to correct even obvious errors anymore. I need to remember that not everyone is as weaselly as Rutten is.
SUSPICION IS THE WRONG WORD TOO, THERE WERE SEVERAL WITNESS’S AND THE JENA 6 ADMITTED THE ATTACK.
KEVIN (de51ba) — 11/17/2007 @ 5:14 pmAlmost every article in most newspaperas are in need of correction.
Contemporary reporters, stingers, “journalists” are not up to the challenge.
rab (7a9e13) — 11/17/2007 @ 5:27 pmhttp://lordnazh.com/DailyRamble/2007/10/2fer.html
Link to a story written by someone IN Jena 🙂
Lord Nazh (458803) — 11/17/2007 @ 5:46 pmI emailed the reader’s representative too. FWIW.
nk (09a321) — 11/17/2007 @ 5:50 pmWell, let’s not stop there. I demand complete disclosure. Moments earlier wasn’t the white kid yucking it up about a black kid getting his ass kicked?
dave (527e4d) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:14 pmYes, Dave. The “white kid” was pounded in retaliation for an attack on a “black kid”. Of course, this was several months after the “noose” incident, which was directed at one of the athletic teams IIRC, and was completely racial-free (according to both white – and black – students at Jena).
The attempt to rekindle the 60’s Civil Rights Era movement at Jena will not go down as one of Big Journalism’s finer moments.
I blame Bush!
Another Drew (758608) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:27 pmBut, Another Drew, Mychal Bell’s public defender didn’t call any witnesses!!!!!!!!!
Like he had any to call. People think criminal defense attorneys can just make up a defense.
lc (1401be) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:39 pmWho in the Hell was talking about witnesses?
I think a serious case can be made for defense atty’s “making up” a defense. Of course, juries have a hard time voting “not guilty” when they are doubled up in laughter.
Another Drew (758608) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:49 pmI’m sorry, I was just being sarcastic about the situation — not to you. The Jena 6 “cause” has taken a life of its own.
lc (1401be) — 11/17/2007 @ 6:58 pmNice try at misrepresenting what I said. The white kid got his ass kicked moments after he was shooting his mouth off about a black kid being attacked. I believe he thought it was funny (but not so funny when it happened to him).
dave (527e4d) — 11/17/2007 @ 7:33 pmYour post has been up 5 hours, and the article has yet to be changed.
wls (a6fede) — 11/17/2007 @ 8:56 pmDave– a vicious assault on someone based on them TALKING about a fight, where ONE GUY is on the ground, unconscious and being kicked by SIX– one of whom is on parole for a prior assault– is alright?
What f*ed up world do you live in?
And that’s assuming that he was even talking about it.
I demand full disclosure. Can I try to kill you for “yucking it up” about this white guy being attacked?
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/17/2007 @ 9:37 pmAnd when the White Nationalists march in Jena on MLK’s birthday next year? Good to see that racism really doesn’t exist anymore. That story has been out for at least a month now and has generated nothing but crickets from the right.
The left doesn’t have 100% stock in the self righteous category I see. I’d be a helluva lot more impressed if you had emailed the Times about its failure to focus on the story mentioned above.
God bless the right leaning blogosphere for defining truth, justice and the American way despite enormous odds against them.
voiceofreason (be6fce) — 11/17/2007 @ 9:38 pmVOR– well, it’s pretty obvious racisim exists.
A kid was nearly beaten to death because of his color.
I notice you’re not even trying to deal with the TOPIC of the post– just picking a tangent that wasn’t even stated. Lovely.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/17/2007 @ 9:49 pmFoxfier,
The topic is Jena and the LA Times with its obvious slant about the story. Stormfront is organizing a march into Jena to defend their “White brother”. Maybe not newsworthy to you but in my opinion it is.
voiceofreason (be6fce) — 11/17/2007 @ 9:53 pmVOR,
I didn’t follow all of your comment. Which story has been out for a month that the right has ignored? Are you referring to the complete Jena 6 story or some part of it?
DRJ (42ad54) — 11/17/2007 @ 9:53 pmDRJ,
On 6 Nov I referenced the following links in a post on this site.
http://www.wdsu.com/news/14446387/detail.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4623708#post4623708
If you check the Stormfront link you will see they have been talking about it since September. The first link doesn’t have the story anymore.
I am sure I come off as a smart aleck about the Jena subject but I remembering posting here or another site that the sad thing was that after the roar of the protesters and the “indignant netizens” faded, no one would really give a hoot about Jena.
voiceofreason (be6fce) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:03 pmIt is only used now to score trivia points about who said what. Sadly my concern has come to be true.
And when they show up, they should both be given a stern lecture.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:09 pm“And when they show up, they should both be given a stern lecture.”
Sure Pablo, take a look at this link.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
voiceofreason (be6fce) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:12 pmFoxfier: Get over yourself. The story was about slanting the story – just as you are doing. Portraying the victim as some innocent minding his own business is bullshit. And get your facts straight: No one was on parole – one kid was on juvenile probation. And yes, he was shooting his big fat mouth off over a black kid getting his ass kicked just prior to getting jumped himself.
Can I try to kill you for “yucking it up” about this white guy being attacked?
No one tried to kill anyone – that’s why those charges were dropped. You have even less credibility than the LAT.
dave (527e4d) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:16 pmA kid that was “nearly beaten to death” is not discharged from the hospital the same day and does not go out to a social event the same night.
dave (527e4d) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:18 pmDave– you get over yourself and, maybe, grow up. Nobody is impressed, and you’re making yourself look foolish.
When you jump someone, beat them unconcious and keep kicking them afterwards, you should be charged with trying to KILL them.
Just because the thugs managed to screw up in their attempt should NOT let them off the hook.
And yes, I do say “thugs.” You are aware that the one who got out last broke his female cousin’s jaw, right?
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/17/2007 @ 10:42 pmArguing with you is like arguing with an eight year old. You go off on tangents, make up facts, can’t follow simple logic, obviously know little to nothing of the law but shoot your mouth off on it anyway.
dave (527e4d) — 11/18/2007 @ 4:38 amvoiceofreason,
The map is interesting, but not terribly enlightening as it doesn’t tell us anything about the makeup of the groups other than that they “…have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics” and that “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing”, which means that if you’ve got two drooling morons meeting in a shed to talk about how the Jews are taking over America and how Hitler had it right, you’ve got yourself a hate group. The record is littered with instances of such groups holding rallies only to find themselves greatly outnumbered by their critics. Here’s one example. I recall another that was supposed to be the world conference of white supremacists that managed to draw a similar number of people to a tent in a park in Idaho.
My point is that yes, there are freaks out there on the fringe, and there always will be. But they don’t drive opinion and they make scant little impact other than to irritate the rest of us. They’re really not newsworthy and media attention would only serve to encourage them. How many people do you know who actually give a damn about Stormfront or what they have to say? How many people out of a country of 300 million are supportive of them? How many unconditionally reject them?
Do you really think that the media ought to cover every crackpot group that takes a position on an issue? Do you think that every abortion story should include a mention of these psychos?
I don’t is all I’m saying. Suggesting that failing to rail against them at every available opportunity is some sort of moral failing is unconvincing. The story, should these morons actually march, will be the reaction to them which I suspect will be in keeping with the usual outcome. Pretty much everyone hates Illinois Nazis.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/18/2007 @ 5:48 amOK, but where will teh correction appear, vis a vis the prominance given to the original? Will they appear on the same page in the dead trees edition?
And as of now, the story available online has not ben corrected.
Dana (556f76) — 11/18/2007 @ 6:46 amWhile I am not a fan of white supremacist groups, I have to ask, what white leader can stand up for the rights of caucasians?
paul from fl (47918a) — 11/18/2007 @ 7:12 amWe have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al for our African-American citizens, but who can stand for the Caucsian-American?
I am sure that there has been, since the beating, some young, immature African-American “yucking it up” over the beating of the victim. Who can comment on that without being called a racist?
Any suggestions?
VOR – Who in the hell is StormFront and why should we be condemning them for acting within their Constitutional rights? Why should we give some crackpots the exposure that they so desperately are seeking? Since I have no idea who they are, and since they do not speak for me, I have no reason to apologize for them, VOR. If you have problems with them marching, getting together, or speaking, take it up with them, or the local media.
JD (33beff) — 11/18/2007 @ 7:24 am*looks at Dave’s posts*
*giggles and goes back to her coffee*
JD- glad I’m not the only one who hadn’t heard of “Stormfront.” My first thought is a novel by Jim Butcher by that title.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 7:39 amI think they’re disgusting, but you select a good point– they *do* have a right to say disgusting things.
While I’m willing to limit folks from protesting at funerals, rejecting someone’s ability to protest because of what they will is say is…dangerous. Illegal, too, but dangerous.
VOR – When they march NEXT YEAR ? Are you advocating prior restraint for a group of apparently publicity seeking asswipes?
JD (33beff) — 11/18/2007 @ 7:59 amAnd as usial the L.A Slimes will blow everything out of preportion and fabricate 99% of it all
krazy kagu (a97175) — 11/18/2007 @ 8:41 amPablo,
You made the statement “all two of them”. I showed you that is not true.
As to your other thoughts I would pose this question to you:
“What political party do you think these types of groups are more likely to gravitate to?”
There is an element of self righteousness among many conservatives who, while not racist, come off as being aggrieved in some fashion as well as pretend that racism and its problems don’t exist anymore.
By your logic there shouldn’t have been any real media coverage of the Jena 6 march or the subsequent criticism from the conservatives.
voiceofreason (be6fce) — 11/18/2007 @ 8:58 amYou understand humor, don’t you, vor? Do you really think they’re going to pull a significant number of people to Jena? How many, do you suppose?
On the contrary, I’m of the mind that racism is indeed a serious continuing problem. But I think it manifests itself more in race baiting and victim mentality than in any real, significant discrimination.
Hmmm…maybe. When you’ve got Al and Jesse leading the pack, you’ve got very high profile people who do indeed influence opinion involved. But they are racists who get far more attention than they deserve.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:25 amVOR– wait, you’re saying the group that DOESN’T make a religion of looking for stuff that’s not PC is coming off as self-righteous?
The one that says folks are good enough to make their own way, without MommyGov’t making it all fair, is “self righteous”?
You’re saying the racists will join up with the folks who want RESULTS, not the right color mix?
Racism does exist, but that does NOT mean that every time anything happens where a person of the right color feels put-upon, it’s racism.
In short: You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Frankly, beating the sh*t out of “a white guy” by “the Jena 6” is pretty bloody racist– what, he can’t even be “The Victim”? The violent SOBs get some kind of a title, but he’s just the white guy?
Noooo, because he’s white in a place where some white guys were accused of hanging nooses in a scary manner!
(Nevermind the backstory and wide range of explanations that HAVE been offered by those actually involved, focus on them being white. The victim is white. Thus, he’s somehow responsible.)
So he’s obviously in the wrong! White teens who get knocked unconscious and kicked by six teenagers of The Right Color are racist! He deserved it!
Good grief, why don’t you just come out and say you want to accuse those you disagree with of bein neo-Nazis?
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:27 amPablo – We are racists for not agreeing with VOR. Accept it.
JD (33beff) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:28 amLast I checked, laughing over someone’s ass-kicking wasn’t a crime, and didn’t actually hurt anyone.
So to say he isn’t a victim is to demonstrate your inability to get past the narative.
6 black students jumps and started to curb-stomp someone who had done nothing to them.
They should all go to jail. Period.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:45 amYeah, but he was white and they’re black, Scott. He had it coming and they can’t be blamed BECAUSE OF THE RACISM!!! Just ask Al and Jesse. And Crystal Gail Mangum.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:55 amcivil rights in the 1960s: voting, equal housing.
assistant devil's advocate: (519cb7) — 11/18/2007 @ 11:39 amcivil rights in the 1980s: affirmative action.
civil rights in the twenty-oughts: the right to beat up white kids with impunity.
Foxfier,
Question: Are you saying the doctrine of the klan and neonazis is not necessarily racist? Are you saying the marchers who went to Jena were racist or were associated with any black separatist groups that promote racism? Have you ever been approached and actively asked to join the klan?
I’m saying that many people who like to portray themselves as the enlightened conservative base are anything but tolerant. Because they are racist? No, it is because they have never really lived in an atmosphere where they were treated differently due to the color of their skin.
My life experience is different than yours in that I have experienced and observed those very things on a decades long basis – not by being offended by a television or internet news story. And yes I was even approached by a klansman on a recruiting mission at my child’s school (5 years ago). Had he seen who my child was he wouldn’t have approached.
Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it is nonexistent. BECAUSE it hasn’t happened to you I would hope you would try to be more AWARE of what is happening around you and speak up when you see these things. Were you AWARE of the 14 year old black girl in Texas who was sentenced to 7 years for pushing her white teacher? Or the other two cases that were justice gone bad involving black youth?
If you weren’t I can assure you that the black community was aware and that was the reason for marching on Jena. Did they pick a bad case to decide to march for? Probably. But like the kettle that will eventually boil over this is what occurred.
I consider myself a conservative and have voted pretty much with the GOP candidates for over 30 years. Yet I am very disappointed with how the rank and file of the GOP who are much like me, don’t acknowledge these things and speak out. They leave the distinct impression that they just don’t care and a very bad message with the minorities of our country.
voiceofreason (135840) — 11/18/2007 @ 11:44 amAnd you just demonstrated your inability to read.
You’re as bad as that other ninny who makes up facts and falsely attributes statements. No one said they shouldn’t go to jail or be prosecuted. However, you and others want a sentence that is totally disproportionate to similar cases.
dave (68cbf5) — 11/18/2007 @ 12:03 pmdave, no one has to make up or falsely attribute your statements in your #20 blaming the victim and excusing the attackers.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/18/2007 @ 12:59 pmVOR– I’m not even going to bother.
I can slap you over the head with all sorts of information, and you’ll keep insisting whatever you want to believe.
Frankly, I just don’t much care anymore, beyond a token response to each new outlandish claim.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 2:22 pmFoxfier,
Fair enough. It is clear that you typify the description I offered about intolerance and are comfortable with your head buried firmly in the sand.
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 2:35 pmAfter all, you’ve got yours and everyone else can go screw themselves.
Check. Thanks for clarifying.
Foxfier.
Try reading this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml
I sense it is a pretty accurate description of you. Too busy to care.
“They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds. And if you persist in the belief you can, take your job and shove it…..
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 2:52 pm“You do have to speak to them a little bit like a therapist on television might speak to a patient,” Salzman says, laughing. “You can’t be harsh. You cannot tell them you’re disappointed in them. You can’t really ask them to live and breathe the company. Because they’re living and breathing themselves and that keeps them very busy.”
VOR, in answer to your question about which party racist groups will be drawn to, there is no need for speculation. Racist groups, and hate groups of all types, have always been drawn to the Democratic party because the Republican party has never tolerated them. But the Democratic party is and has been the home of racists, bigots, and other forces of hatred and violence. The Democrats support Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, black Muslims, Muslim terrorists, Mexican separatists, eco terrorists, animal-rights terrorists, communist terrorists, and KKK terrorists. Yes, the KKK started in the South as the terrorist branch of the Democratic party.
The Republican party is not, and never has been a home for such people. Even in the highly emotional and divisive issue of abortion, the Republicans have never condoned or excused anti-abortion terrorism the way that Democrats have condoned or excused the kinds of terrorism that I listed above. The Republican party is, and always has been the major political force in this country against racism, bigotry and violence.
The fact that you don’t know this makes me doubt that you are really a conservative. If you have really been so badly fooled by the Democrat-controlled press and schools as to believe that the Republicans are the racist party, then you should not be a conservative. What kind of jerk votes for the racist party?
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 11/18/2007 @ 3:17 pmMan… Been a long time since I got called a “ninny”.
How quaint.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/18/2007 @ 3:42 pmDoc Rampage,
If you really believe that fringe groups like the klan, skinheads, etc. really identify more with the democrats than republicans I think you are living in dreamland. The Democratic ideals represent all that they really hate – chiefly inclusiveness of all people.
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 4:00 pmIn case you are too thick to notice I didn’t say that was the choice of the GOP or that it is the racist party, it is simply a reality the GOP has been remiss to speak out on. The one exception was when they refused to be associated with David Duke.
Other than that crickets…
Bunk I say! Bunk!
Not only does the democratic party forward the idea that minorities are so helpless that they can only get hired if employers are forced (quotas and Affermitive Action), but they are also the party that was most likely to block through various means black chlidren from attanding “white” schools.
And guess which party has a klansmen in it’s ranks.
It ain’t the republicans, bubba…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/18/2007 @ 5:41 pmWhich party freed the slaves? Which party pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Which party largely opposed it?
You’re not going to like the answers to those questions, vor. Oh wait, you’re a Staunch Republican, so I guess you will. As long as you don’t mind being wrong here.
Hey, what party was Bull Connor in?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/18/2007 @ 5:56 pmDoc– with all due respect, don’t bother.
He can’t be bothered to find out that the teacher who was “shoved” was bleeding and treated at a hospital. He can’t be bothered to look at the fact that the “football star” broke his 17 year old female cousin’s jaw. Why on earth would he bother to notice which party KKK members and such were actually on?
He’d probably call the guy who wrote this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html
some sort of a racist liar, as well.
Seriously, just don’t bother. He’s in his own little world, and nothing we do will pull him out of it. The only reason I reply to him is because I’m either bored or I want to make sure the Internet has record of him being opposed.
If you contradict him, then you’re deranged, evil or lying. *shrug* I’m sure there’s some psychology reason behind it, but most folks just call it “childish.”
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 6:12 pmVTW, VoR– actually, I was raised on a ranch.
There are notable winners and losers. Half of the men I grew up around were missing fingers from the “losing” part.
This taught me that when you are stupid, you’re going to get hurt. I know folks who died from just plain bad luck. I’ve seen the other side of what “social programs” do– one guy commited suicide by bull to escape an old folks home.
The only sport I was a member of was a form of Jepordy played by teams.
When you got stuff wrong there, no only did you lose, but you felt stupid. But I suppose you don’t have any idea how it is to realize you were wrong….
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 6:18 pmQuote from vor..
“And when the White Nationalists march in Jena on MLK’s birthday next year? Good to see that racism really doesn’t exist anymore. That story has been out for at least a month now and has generated nothing but crickets from the right.”
Black activists marched in Jena in support of black teens who are guilty of assault, who were charged with a crime that was overturned on appeal, and who have been found guilty again of assault. They supported the assault of a white teen who was not involved in any of their complaints, with the exception of being a jerk about another assault.
How is that not racist?
And, you say nothing about that….
reff (99666d) — 11/18/2007 @ 7:50 pmVOR, have you ever even read what these guys write to see what they believe? If you had a conversation with one and the issue of race didn’t come up, you would think that you were talking to a radical Democrat or Green Party member.
They support segregation which is just another word for multiculturalism. They tend to believe in government-controlled economies. They generally support euthanasia and abortion (of minorities). Most racists hate and despise conservative Christians in general and George Bush in particular. Most racists think that our support of Israel is part of a grand conspiracy. Lots of racists think that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. White separatists have common goals with the black separatist and hispanic separatists that the Democrats support. Racists tend to be openly anti-American (meaning that they oppose America). Racists tend to hate the police.
Stack all of that up against what the separatists have in common with Republicans and there isn’t much. They are both against preferential treatment for minorities. What else?
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 11/18/2007 @ 8:19 pmDave, why do you keep bringing this up? Does it in any way mitigate what the thugs did? Are you trying to imply that the white kid had it coming?
I’m really curious, please answer us all why this has any significance.
Steverino (c33cc5) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:13 pmSteverino — emotional response is what he’s going for; if he can accuse the victim of doing something socially unacceptable, but not illegal or physically harmful in any way, he can blacken the victim’s name and imply blame on him.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:17 pmOh Foxfier, Millenials! what is one to do with them. It is all about you. I get that. The 14 year old girl’s case was overturned.
Go back to congratulating yourself on how you never had any help from anyone and those bad old blacks need to do the same….
Reff, there may have been black nationalists marching in jena but the entire march was certainly far from a black separatist organized and attended event. that is the difference.
Doc Rampage,
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:35 pmKeep dreaming that the Klan and Nazi groups vote D when they are in the voting booth. What will you do when robert byrd finally leaves the senate?
VOR- lrn2reed.
She was released early. In the middle of a scandal, no less.
The conviction was not overturned.
Please provide reputable links if this has changed.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:47 pmBTW– I do notice you can’t actually RESPOND to what Doc said, just rant and imply he’s wrong. FTL, for sure.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:48 pmFoxfier,
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:52 pmHe has no proof to back up his claims yet you accept as gospel. Millenials! Read it on the internet therefore it is true because it favors my “conservative street cred”.
Foxfier,
You are correct. No conviction was overturned but in typical fashion you ignore the facts of the story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-070326juveniles,0,2869909.story
“Among the leading candidates for early release is Shaquanda Cotton, a 14-year-old black girl from the small east Texas town of Paris, who was sent to prison for up to 7 years for shoving a hall monitor at her high school while other young white offenders convicted of more serious crimes received probation in the town’s courts.
Shaquanda’s story was the subject of a March 12 Tribune article that triggered hundreds of Internet blog articles and thousands of message board postings and led to a nationwide letter-writing campaign to the Texas governor decrying perceived racial discrimination in her case.”
But I’m sure in your view she deserved it….
voiceofreason (102869) — 11/18/2007 @ 9:59 pmAnd what other crimes was she on probabtion for/commit that day?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/18/2007 @ 10:17 pmhttp://dallassouthblog.com/2007/03/25/top-ten-misperceptions-and-miscalculations-relating-to-the-paris-texas-story/
Read the last one.
Average Jo (98c273) — 11/18/2007 @ 10:30 pmScott Jacobs — the gal had a long record of being written up at that school, once again I notice they don’t mention the head injury or the cut arm and various scrapes– heck of a “shove”– and was offered a plea deal if she’d just admit to guilt.
Frankly, if I was nearly 60 years old and some 14 year old made me bleed for being an assistant in a school, I’d charge the little brat, too.
I get the impression that her mother made the lawyer turn down the plea deal to make a point, which explains why they went with such a heavy charge in the first place– seeing as the jury was only out for ten minutes, they probably got pissed off, as well.
Her mother and grandmother are political action group founders, and her mother has alleged that her daughter is written up because of who her mother is.
VOR- my source is primary. Yours are secondary, or even less.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/19/2007 @ 6:25 amYou do not need “credible sources” to listen to folks tell you what happened in their own community.
I notice that once again, those who disagree are lying, and you STILL can’t respond to what is actually said.
VOR – PETA is on its way over to your place. It’s about the horse.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:13 amPatterico: don’t be ashamed; you were right to be snide over the L.A. Times printing a made-up fact. It’s mighty big of them to offer to fix their boner after the fact (an offer on which, as of this writing, they have yet to make good), but that’s no excuse for spewing such ignorant crap in the first place.
Everyone else: until/unless Dave produces a shred of evidence to support his made-up allegation that Barker was “yucking it up about a black kid getting his ass kicked,” I suggest we halt all debate over whether such an allegation would have justified what those six monsters did to him. It wouldn’t, of course, but debating the topic on Dave’s terms gives his libelous smear a legitimacy it does not deserve.
Xrlq (8b1564) — 11/19/2007 @ 6:13 pmIt does take ’em a while to correct errors. Advantage: blogosphere.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 7:44 pmFoxfier,
You refuse to answer the three questions I asked you in #38. Why? I think it is because you don’t want to admit that you are more interested in looking for reasons to be aggrieved and get yourself a piece of the “victim pie” and far less concerned with what is happening around you.
And because you don’t like what her relatives are doing well… betcha by golly wow she deserved the harsher sentence.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:13 pmAs I suspected, again, anyone who disagrees with VOR on this issue is a racist.
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:18 pmVOR – You are belly achin’ about something that has not even happened. Do you understand that? When, or rather, if it ever happens, it will pale in comparison to the race pimps that marched on Jenna in support of people committing felonies against white people. When those 16 people show up to make asses out of themselves, begging and pleading for just a little publicity, I hope they do not get it. They do not speak for me, nk, foxfier, Scott Jacobs, Pablo, Patterico, DRJ, etal.
It boggles the mind why you are so caught up on a potential march by a fringe group in comparison to a gigantic march by a protected class that is a bought and paid for constituent of the Democratic party.
Never mind, you never approached this logically before. Why should we expect anything differnt this time?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:22 pmThat differs from any other issue how, JD?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:22 pmMr. Jacobs: point.
Very good point.
….Hope springs eternal?
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:28 pmJD,
You are too dense to get much of anything. You want me to call you a racist that badly. Okay JD is a racist! There you can be a victim now. happy?
As I said in #38
“I’m saying that many people who like to portray themselves as the enlightened conservative base are anything but tolerant. Because they are racist? No, it is because they have never really lived in an atmosphere where they were treated differently due to the color of their skin.”
What is the reason that the Republican party has only about 15% of the black voters registered with it? You tell me.
You are allowed to call people names without consequence and I fully expect you to launch your next verbal assault on me. But given what I wrote and what you claim it is apparent that either (a) you have serious reading comprehension disabilities or (b) you mouth off without reading what someone said.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:30 pmVOR
Pointing out how you are a moron isn’t the same thing as calling you a moron.
One lists a pile of evidence amassed over, well, frankly we could pretty much pick a 24hour period and get a mountain, an dthe other is merely stating an opinion.
VOR, you and dave are not only ignoring some key points, but you’re trying to raise a number of strawmen in a vain effort to deflect criticism.
It really is sad…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:33 pmScott,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:38 pmThanks for the complement. Dave makes good points. It is unfortunate that so many people refuse to look at the bigger picture regarding Jena and the march that occurred.
You mean the picture that a bunch of felonious assailants were lauded and priased by nation as victims when the real victim is somehow made to be the bad guy?
No, I think we see the bigger picture just fine.
Looks like I’ll be teaching my kids to fight dirty, and for keeps since it’s the only defense they’ll have.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:42 pmScott,
What you are ignoring is there were many other injustices within the system that led to the march. As I said in one earlier post
“If you weren’t I can assure you that the black community was aware and that was the reason for marching on Jena. Did they pick a bad case to decide to march for? Probably. But like the kettle that will eventually boil over this is what occurred.”
The FBI released its report for 2006 on hate crimes and 58% of those were committed by whitess, 20% by blacks and the rest by other. Just under 10000 incidents. That means that whites were involved in just under 5400 incidents in one year alone while blacks were involved in 2000.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:50 pmI’d say that the parity is well established and your kids have little to worry about in perpetuating the racial animosity.
VOR– hm, you are aware that a lot of actual hate crimes are ignored because the victim is the wrong color, aren’t you?
Spend ten minutes on google, since you’re so willing to waste our time.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:53 pmFoxfier,
Proof? And not some whacked opinion blog. The FBI report is official.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:54 pmProve it or don’t waste my time.
VOR, #55…
No, they may not have been black separatists, but they were black racists…which is what you mean when you talk about white nationalists….as your next line in your post reads: “Good to see that racism really doesn’t exist anymore. That story has been out for at least a month now and has generated nothing but crickets from the right.”
Your words, not mine…about racism/racists in Jena…
So, my point again? You don’t mention that part, do you? You bring racism into your post, and so easily IGNORE THE RACISM THAT IS ALREADY MARCHING IN JENA…blantant racism, supporting criminals simply because they were black….ignoring their actions because they were black….by people who are there only because they are black….
So typical of you….scream racism but ignore the real racism….
reff (99666d) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:05 pmHow do you know that these unenlightened rubes have never lived in an atmosphere such as you described? Where do you get off of making such sweeping generalizations, that the conservative base is anything but tolerant?
Why 15% of the black vote? The Republicans do not lie to them, pimp them, pander to them, and promote policies that sound good, but have negative effects in the real world. The Dems promise, and promise, and promise, and promise. Never deliver. And are never held to account.
Oh, do explain to us the bigger picture, VOR. We simply do not have the received wisdom that you apparently possess.
Hate crimes? Why is it that it seems like every crime that has a black victim and a white criminal has some kind of racial angle to it, but not when the victim is white and the criminal black? VOR – you claim to like stats. Look at the overall crime statistics. What are the percentages of black on black crime compared to white on black crime. What are the percentages of black on white crime as compared to white on white crime?
I would really like to know why you seem so hell bent on making the majority of Americans and the vast majority of conservatives answer for a teenie tiny minority of racists. Why do you not call on the Dems to denounce their racists in the same manner?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:08 pmReff,
Some things whites never had to put up with:
1. Lynchings for egregious crimes such as looking at a white woman (in the hundreds if not thousands)
2. Being used for illegal medical experiments right into the 1960’s
3. Use crack and go to jail. Snort it (white cocaine form of choice) and get a pass.
Then you have the audacity to paint all of the thousands of marchers as racist because some separatists were there. Compared to the white nationalists who have a charter for segregation and illegal treatment of people of color.
The real racism is that being perpertrated against whites? If ever there were a talking point for the Klan that is one and you use it!!
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:10 pmreff – Maybe it is just me, but VOR is all worked up, again, over something that has not even happened. So far, some group that nobody has ever heard of, except for VOR, has vowed to march there NEXT YEAR, and this is supposed to induce apoplexy in us, like it does him. How did you find out about this, VOR? Are you on their mailing list?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:10 pmJD,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:13 pmYou are a product of a broken education system. I have to cut you some slack for not being aware of what is happening in your own country or that you feel the need to be spoon fed your opinion by pundits and talk show hosts….
So, VOR, if a white person is caught using, buying, or selling crack, the exact same laws do not apply?
How many people, in our lifetime, have been lynched for looking at a white woman?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:16 pmSo, enlighten me, oh wise one. I am a sponge. Teach me the error of my ways.
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:17 pmvoiceofreason,
You say:
The FBI released its report for 2006 on hate crimes and 58% of those were committed by whitess, 20% by blacks and the rest by other. Just under 10000 incidents. That means that whites were involved in just under 5400 incidents in one year alone while blacks were involved in 2000.
Amuse me and provide a link.
And answer me these questions three:
1) What percentage of hate crimes were committed by Hispanics?
2) What percentage of hate crimes were motivated by bias against Hispanics?
3) Do anything about those numbers seem weird to you?
No, no, no. Stop. Stop! Stop leaping to assumptions. Don’t say one single word until you look up the numbers.
Not one word. Go. Look them up. Don’t pretend to understand the point I am trying to make.
Stop. Just do what I say. Look up the stats. And then report back to me, answering the questions.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:25 pmGive me one good reason why I should care about your blanket generalizations, your erroneous conclusions, and your baseless assertions? Why should Scott Jacobs be held to account for the potential excercise of their 1st Amendment rights by a group of crazies. They speak for nobody but themselves. Nobody. There is no reason for Scott, Foxfier, me, anyone but the noxious people that hold their ideas to answer for their ideas.
What really gets me, and I suspect bothers many, is that your pedantic arrogant self-Lefteous preening is devoid of fact. You claim some moral high ground for yourself by virtue of the fact that some asshats claim to be planning a march sometime next year. You have given them more free publicity than they would have ever had in their entire existence, by your constant bleating about them.
Again, unless you can show that they some way speak for me, or anyone else around here, consider it a baseless attack that you are leveling against a group of people, namely, us. They do not represent my interests, or any of the people that routinely comment around here. In fact, their positions are likely the exact opposite of mine, not that that would matter to you.
Isn’t life grand while perched up on your moral high ground?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:27 pmOh, oh, oh … Patterico. Can I answer that one?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:28 pmPatterico,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:33 pm1. Hispanics weren’t included as a race
2. 62%
3. I’m sure you will tell me what is weird.
JD,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:34 pmI know you seem to be Patterico’s boy but I didn’t realize you were the spokesman for all Patterico posters.
here is your link Patterico.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
Waiting for you to “report” back to me.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:38 pmVOR – You are right. I do not speak for everyone. I do have my personal experience in dealing with these people, and to a man and woman, they are some of the most kind, caring, and honest people I have encountered on the internet. They are quick to mock even their own party when they disagree, and do not hesitate to criticize their own. Maybe they are all seething racists that have managed to disguise their true selves all this time. Since you seem to know better than I, who are the racists amongst us. Who will be joining this obscure group in their yet to happen march?
Where do you get off on preaching to everyone in such a manner?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:40 pmJD,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:42 pmYou just don’t have the capacity to get it. As much as you would like to have people believe it I have not painted the “racist” label across the majority of the posters here.
Actually, I was waiting for *you* to report back to *me.*
I already know the answer. I’m waiting for you to discover it.
Answer me these questions three . . .
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:42 pmAsked and answered in #88. The only weird thing I noted was that a third of law enforcement agencies don’t report statistics on hate crimes. Including Jena’s.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:43 pmI’ll make it easier:
Is there a category for Hispanic offenders?
Is there a category for anti-Hispanic bias?
Once you’ve looked that up, tell me if you think Hispanics are the only group on planet Earth that doesn’t commit hate crimes.
If you say “no” then see if you can think of any other logical explanation for this amazing discrepancy.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:44 pmOK. You answered it.
So. Tell me if you think Hispanics are the only group on planet Earth that doesn’t commit hate crimes.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:45 pmSo then, what is it you want? Do you want us to denounce some potential skinhead march? Denounced. Mocked even. Outside of that, you just claim some type of moral superiority and enlightenment that the rest of us are not privvy to. Enlighten us.
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:45 pmIf you give up, I’m here to help. But isn’t it more fun to guess?
Further hint: when is a Hispanic person a white person?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:46 pmI answered both of those. This doesn’t erase the thousands of hate crimes that were committed. Make your point.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:46 pmWhen they act badly? When they act well? Both?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:46 pmPatterico – The stats would not look good if they included the proper classifications. If I read that right, and I may be wrong, but weren’t Hispanics lumped into the category of Whites for purposes of offenders, but singled out in the category of offenders?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:47 pmBINGO!
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:48 pmHispanics are Hispanics when they are hate crime VICTIMS.
They are “whites” when they are hate crime OFFENDERS.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:48 pmJust something to keep in mind when you see all those hate crimes committed by “whites.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:49 pmAnd you got this jewel from who in the FBI that said “Patterico, you know we want to pad the stats to make white people look bad”?
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:49 pmMaybe someone in law enforcement could explain something like this to me. As I understand it, the hate crimes law is written in such a way that it could be applied to crimes against white people. But, it flies in the face of the purpose of the legislation, which is to protect protected classes, and more severely punish offenders of hate crimes because their crimes can have a larger impact than on just the victim. To that end, are actual prosecutions of hate crimes pursued to the same degree with white victims as they are with black victims? Is the concept of hate crimes even considered for crimes against white victims to the same extent that it is considered for black victims?
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:51 pmThe point that YOU miss Patterico is that (a) thousands of hate crimes are reported (b) one third of the police districts don’t report (c) the fact that 20% are committed by blacks kind of shoots the popular opinion that they are never held accountable
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:51 pmThis is a well-known fact, vor — and something to keep in mind when you say:
“Whites” meaning “whites and Hispanics.”
Just sayin’.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:51 pmVOR – Do you have a problem with honesty?!
JD (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:52 pmMaybe the point was to make Hispanics look good.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:52 pmI never heard a rational justification for this.
But it has been going on for years.
In fact, I didn’t even look at the 2006 stats before I issued the challenge to vor. I just knew it was the way it’s always been.
I have looked it up since, and, sho nuff, they haven’t changed the classifications.
Gotta love the feds.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:54 pmOr maybe it’s too hard to tell whites from Hispanics in some places. It would be where I live.
That’s really interesting.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:55 pmYeah, it’s only easy when they’re victims.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:56 pmWell, I know you’re being sarcastic but – seriously – when an offender is linked to a specific race, law enforcement is more concerned about profiling than they might be with victims.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:58 pmI feel sure I’ve written about this before but I can’t find anything about it in my archives.
Yes, I was being plenty sarcastic.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:00 pmI think the reason for the discrepancy is simple: this is what the FBI asks for.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:02 pmWas it this post?
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:02 pmIf the FBI *asked* for stats on Hispanic offenders, they’d get stats on Hispanic offenders.
They just don’t.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:03 pmNext time my son is stopped for no other reason than he looks Hispanic I’ll be sure to tell him Patterico said suck it up – the stats are skewed.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:03 pmNext time he gets asked his race by a cop I’ll tell him Patterico says he shoudn’t whine, just be grateful he is a citizen and know that racism really doesn’t occur – just hysterical rants by leftie commies.
Bout sum it up?
Yup, I mentioned it in passing there.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:04 pmAh, it’s so much fun to have one’s position totally distorted.
Yes, I said racism really doesn’t occur. Isn’t that exactly what I said?
Uh, no. It wasn’t what I said, at all.
So please don’t say it was.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:06 pmI had a discussion with someone today about the need to have political discussions by invoking one simple rule; State the Other Guy’s Position in a Way That He Would Agree with Your Characterization.
You just failed that test miserably, voiceofreason.
Try again.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:07 pmLike I said sarcasm begets sarcasm
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:07 pmNext time my son is stopped for no other reason than he looks Hispanic I’ll be sure to tell him Patterico said suck it up – the stats are skewed.
I’d love to hear about one of the times that this supposedly happened, by the way.
You are certain, are you, that there was no legitimate reason for the stop?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:08 pmLike I said sarcasm begets sarcasm
You made a comment about hate crimes committed by “whites.” I simply pointed out that it really means hate crimes committed by “whites and Hispanics.”
So it doesn’t really tell you squat about hate crimes committed by non-Hispanic whites.
Just makin’ sure you knew that. Don’t think ya did.
Did you?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:10 pmSupposedly? It did happen several times. Walking in a group of white friends and being singled out and asked his business. 7-8 p.m.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:13 pmHe is a good kid, doesn’t drink or do drugs. B average student in his second year of college who just enjoys weightlifting and being fit.
But we live 2 hours from Jena – little different here in the deep south for those with darker skin.
And no legitmate reason for the stop. When this happens I go through the drill and make him tell me the whole story beginning to end.
Patterico,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:15 pmI didn’t know that about the Hispanic stats. But my point was that the myth that blacks don’t get arrested for hate crimes is just that – a myth.
I figured you meant traffic stops. I’ve heard many a person call Larry Elder and say he was stopped for driving while black.
Larry will say: “Why did the officer *say* he stopped you?”
Answer: “Well, for a cracked windshield, but what I am trying to say is . . .”
Larry: “Well, was it cracked?”
Answer: “That’s not the point, Larry. The point is . . . ”
Larry: “Was it cracked? Yes or no? Was it cracked?”
Answer: “Uh . . .”
Larry: “Answer the question.”
Answer: “Well, yeah. But Larry, that’s not the point . . . “
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:17 pmBut my point was that the myth that blacks don’t get arrested for hate crimes is just that – a myth.
I’ll agree with that. The stats show they do.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:17 pmOn one occasion he was stopped for not having his headlight. During the course of the stop his friend was asked “Are you white?”
the first thing I did when he told me was to get him to admit what part of his action was wrong. The next thing was to call the local police and ask if it was SOP for them to ask the race of the people they stop.
It is very difficult raising children who are profiled or treated as he is to not have a chip on their shoulders – to convince them they are the better person for being mature about it. It gets old and quick.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:20 pmOn one occasion he was stopped for not having his headlight. During the course of the stop his friend was asked “Are you white?”
the first thing I did when he told me was to get him to admit what part of his action was wrong. The next thing was to call the local police and ask if it was SOP for them to ask the race of the people they stop.
What did they say?
Some departments are required to keep statistics on the race of people they stop.
It’s similar with jury selection. I write down the race and gender of every juror questioned in any trial I conduct. Every prosecutor and defense attorney I know does the same. Why? Because we use that information to kick jurors?
No. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. It’s because it’s illegal to do so.
Therefore, we always face the possibility of being accused of doing so — so we keep track of race and gender, to be able to respond to such accusations.
It’s annoying but necessary.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:24 pmThey said that it wasn’t SOP and that my son could file a complaint if he liked and they would check the cam footage from the cruiser. My son didn’t want to get on their “radar” by lodging a complaint and declined to do so.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:28 pmCan’t really blame him as it is a small town.
Too bad.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:29 pmSeems like the management responded well, though.
I’m not saying it’s the case with your son, but sometimes when you let the complainants know there is video proof, they don’t press the case. Maybe they realize the reality isn’t quite how they portrayed it to others.
Again, I’m not saying that happened with your son. But it does sometimes happen.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:31 pmSo far I’ve been pretty pleased that he doesn’t play himself off as a “victim”. It hurts to see him go through this crap but I think he will be much stronger for it.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:35 pmMy wife is from the far east and has co-workers who talk about how “if god meant for people to marry across race birds would breed across species”
Unless you’ve lived in the deep south it is incredibly hard to believe these things happen in today’s world.
Patterico – How does that 58/20% white/black hate crime statistic track with the overall population? Does throwing Hispanic in with white totally mess up the ratios between actual hate crimes and share of the population?
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:37 pmHe said that his friend was not in the front of the cruiser and it was possible the comment wasn’t recorded. My opinion is that if I really believe what he said i will contact the chief of police not so much to start some legal action as to let them know I am paying attention. If it causes the leadership to advise their officers to “knock it off” or whatever, it is worth the call.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:39 pmWell, as I understand it, the census doesn’t break down Hispanics versus others because it is considered an ethnicity rather than a race (which is probably why the hate crime stats are kept the way they are). I think “whites” are generally around 75% of the population, and blacks are generally around 12%. But “whites” probably includes a significant percentage of Hispanics.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:52 pmVOR,
I’m not trying to downplay your son’s situation or your frustration. I agree that things are different in the Deep South and that’s unfair. However, I’m sure you are helping your son learn to handle these facts in a positive, mature way.
Life is full of unfair things. Our son is not the victim of racism but he does have a disability that affects him every day. He’s lost out on important opportunities because of his disability, as well as many of life’s fun events. I know he will live with these challenges for the rest of his life, and I can’t change it or make it better.
At some point, we all have to decide whether we let the problems or the potential take charge in our lives because we all have both.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 10:57 pmDRJ,
I had a cousin with Cerebral Palsy so I can relate a little to your family. Not easy and you are right about the challenges.
The thing that I don’t seem to be putting into words very well is that there are too few people willing to step back and try to look through the eyes of others to understand them. This is particularly true in regards to the white-black relations in our country.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 11:14 pmToo many take defensive postures that they are being accused of being racist when they can’t recongize that they are simply being pointed to a view/perception that needs to be acknowledged and understood, eve if not necessarily 100% agreed with.
That is my whole point about why the GOP is having a hard time winning over people of color. Just listening with an open mind never hurt anyone.
I grew up in the south and can remember the segregated bathrooms and water fountains. I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see the black-white acrimony solved and that saddens me.
VOR,
It’s easy for me to have an opinion about racism but I don’t have to live with it. However, here’s how I look at similar issues in my life:
It takes time to change people’s minds about important issues and it’s frustrating when people don’t see things the same way I do. IMO the best and maybe the only way to win people over to a different point of view is to educate them about why I believe the way I do.
Think about the best teachers you had growing up. Were they resentful and manipulative, or were they patient and eager to share information? Like a good teacher, consider people who you think don’t understand as opportunities, not problems. And be willing to keep an open mind. They might have a good point, too.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 11:53 pmI’m speaking in generalities, VOR. You are not resentful or manipulative, and I know you have an open mind.
DRJ (973069) — 11/19/2007 @ 11:56 pmbut laughing at another kid getting beat up will get you jumped. And have you tried dating a black woman? Here’s a slight tip for ya buddy. NEVER go to the bad parts of town unless you carry a freaking gun. You likely won’t survive the trip.
Well, unless you were a retared white kid. Then you were fair game.
You obviously fail to understand that crack is associate with more street crime (user/dealer), and that there are plenty of white folks who use the stuff.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:02 amVOR:
I’d say it’s well established that you’re an idiot. Setting aside the cute semantic tricks that count the same individual as an “Hispanic” victim or a “white” perp, what the hell kind of “parity” is it when 10% of the population accounts for 20% of the hate crimes in question, while another 80% accounts for only than 58%? I don’t think the word “parity” means what you think it means.
Xrlq (8b1564) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:04 amAnd did they call you a moron/retarded for not agreeing/not getting the answer right?
Well, some of the ones in college do, I suppose. Ward CHurchill seems the sort to me.
My Ethics class next semester should be interesting…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:04 am#143
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:41 amRead Cosby’s new book and you will understand what systemic racism is and why it contributes to much of the current state of black-white relations. Blacks are more likely to use crack than cocaine and end up in jail with felony records. Why are sentences for powdered coke not the same OR ones for crack the same as powdered coke. Why should you care? Because every person in jail costs you tax dollars to keep them there and when they are released it is your tax dollars that support an unemployed convict. If the sentencing for crack were changed to community service and the money previously spent to house them in prison were directed toward treatment would society be safer? Would the offenders be more or less likely to be productive members of society and not permanently unemployed?
I didn’t even mention the syphillis experiment conducted on black men in the thirties that was never corrected even after penicillin was discovered as a cure. Without understanding how recently these things have occurred it is difficult to understand why blacks are less likely to get regular health care which lead to earlier deaths. They don’t trust the medical establishment for a reason. Why should you care if simple humanity is not enough? Higher medical insurance prices are a result of a larger number of sick people in society.
Lastly, through the 1920’s it is estimated that over 2500 blacks were lynched. Do you seriously think one white person getting jumped is anywhere near the same level. Want something recent? How about the black man who was dragged to his death by being chained to a truck in Texas? That happened in the last ten years. In your mind does that bring parity?
XRLQ,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:43 amSee #129
Could it be because crack is associated with more violent crime?
Hey, that sounds familiar…
Again VOR… Calling me a racist – either blatantly or implying it – doesn’t actually strenthen your case.
Do it again, and I’ll start reacting poorly.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:12 amThe #1 blowhard, XRLQ, appears. You want the evidence, use google. Love your histrionics. lol You are as bad as foxy, Jacobs, and others, in your false attributions of arguments to people that don’t agree with you. No one said the white kid shooting his mouth off about a black kid getting jumped is justification of an assault but the irony is inescapable. Another inescapable fact that a kid “nearly beaten to death” as foxy would have people believe, is not treated and released after a couple of hours and fit enough to go out that evening.
All these kids are being prosecuted. Bell has already done over a year. However, you people want these kids incarcerated for years, contrary to what similar situated defendants would receive as a sentence. Normally, I would chalk it up to people who do not work in the juvenile criminal justice system. But reading the comments, here, and on other forums, some of you are no better than the Jacksons/Sharptons of the world.
dave (ad59ba) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:30 amDave, when you make an assertation, it isn’t up to us to provide facts to back up your claim.
If you want to actually influence someone’s opinions, you’re going to need to stop acting like such an asshole…
Really. What do people usually get for mob action and agrivated assault if they have a rap sheet longer than my arm, and are already on probation for assault? If one one person in that whole mess of kids should get a LONG prison sentence, it’s Bell. He can rot for all I care. He’s already demonstrated an utter and total lack of regard for every single person around him, including members of his own family.
In a year, when he’s out of prison and ends up shooting someone in a robbery, just remember that it’s folks like you that wanted him released.
The beating the kid recieved stopped because the attackers were pulled off him. He was on the ground having lost conciousness. He was defenseless, and they continued to beat him.
Usually when you don’t stop something like that, the person dies.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:53 amScott,
You are looking for me to call you a racist. Almost like it would give you a reason to act “poorly” and feel better about yourself. If you can’t answer the questions I raised, fine just admit it. You are making a correlation that you think fits. The violence may be due to the poor neighborhoods rather than crack itself.
But one thing this thread has proven and even Patterico fell into it a bit is this: Mention statistics regarding white involvement and people do all sorts of gyrations to say why that is not accurate, while ignoring the stat about blacks who are charged with hate crimes, which in so many comments is alleged to never happen.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:05 amBut one thing this thread has proven and even Patterico fell into it a bit is this: Mention statistics regarding white involvement and people do all sorts of gyrations to say why that is not accurate, while ignoring the stat about blacks who are charged with hate crimes, which in so many comments is alleged to never happen.
How is it that I “fell into” ignoring the stat about blacks? Let’s revisit my comment 129:
That’s pretty clear.
My other comments about the statistics generally were an obvious response to your comment:
If all you’d said is: hey, blacks get arrested for hate crimes too . . . nobody would be arguing with you. But you tried to make it sound like whites did a ton of them. So I pointed out that “whites” include Hispanics for purposes of the offender stats, and that blacks are getting arrested for them out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
That’s not gyrations, my friend. It’s just facts. Meanwhile, the point about how blacks do get arrested? I conceded that without qualification.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:16 amPatterico,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:25 amI think no matter how it is phrased people are going to argue with me on how innocent the whites are relative to blacks. Maybe not you but plenty of other commenters.
If I had said “Look, Hispanics don’t even commit hate crimes” I can see your comments as spot on. But it seems you only saw the 58% and stopped at that point. Maybe not, but that is my perception.
Merely predicting future evens based on past performance.
So there was rampant crime and violence during the Great Depression, eh?
While you not only ignore the fact that the stats are falsely compiled to inflate “crimes commited by” for whites, you also fail to answer the reasonable question posed to you. 80% of the population accounts for (even with the boosted stats) 68% of the hate crimes, while 10% accounts for 20%.
Why is that?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:25 amScott,
Blacks make up 15% of the population. 20% is not that far off the expected average.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:27 amso explain the huge difference for whites.
Or does that just not matter to you?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:35 amScott,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:37 amAnswer my questions in 143 and I’ll answer yours in 156.
VOR– here’s one link you might read.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070610hatecrime-story,1,6739028.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Also, yes, 1/3 of the total *is* a pretty long ways from the expected percentage. Just like the other being over 1/8th lower than the population is a rather big differance.
VOR, you already have implied several times that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Shoot, you also tried to slander me as an ADD brat. *shrugs* You have a really hard time actually arguing, instead of doing personal attacks or appeals to emotion.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/20/2007 @ 6:57 amBTW, VOR- WHY do you keep setting up the “racism doesn’t exist” strawman? You brought it out of the blue in your very first post, and you keep on bringing it out.
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:00 amFoxfier I have implied nothing. If the shoe of guilty conscience fits by all means wear it. Your link and math don’t make sense – care to rephrase your point?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:05 amI really question the validity of “hate crime” statistics. The determination whether to report a crime as a “hate crime” is too subjective and subject to discretion. Hate crime convictions as opposed to hate crime incidents would offer a much better picture. Even there, I would question how many times the hate crime charge might not have been pleaded out or even thought redundant. For example, if aggravated battery with a firearm has a mandatory minimum of 25 years and is easily proven with objective evidence what would be the point in trying to prove the defendant’s motive beyond a reasonable doubt?
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:23 amA very reasonable statement from Foxfier’s link above:
In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.
“In the old days,” said Hutchinson, contemplating that statistic, “when you said ‘hate crimes,’ it was automatic—whites victimizing blacks. Today you have to pause for a minute and not make automatic assumptions.”
Cross-racial violence is not per se a hate crime — true enough. Sifting out the hate crimes at the time the incident is reported — an unreliable process.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:30 amNK,
According to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html
“In 2005, the FBI estimated that 14,094,186 arrests occurred nationwide for all offenses (except traffic violations), of which 603,503 were for violent crimes, and 1,609,327 for property crimes”
Where does the 645,000 figure come from? It makes no sense.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:48 amThe FBI tabulates both by reported incidents and by arrests. Link here.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:02 amNK,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:20 amYour link takes me to the homepage. Show me the math involved with links to tables.
VOR,
Unless there’s a problem with your browser, you should have “Offenses known to the police” with links to the individual crimes. For example, if you click “Aggravated Assault” it’ll take you to a summary showing more than 800,000 reported. Going to the right, there’s a link to crimes “cleared”. That includes by arrest.
Scrolling down a little more, you see “Persons Arrested” again with link(s).
What can I say? It’s not my reporting system, it’s the FBI’s.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:45 amNK,
How does the figure 645,000 get calculated?
603,000 was the total number of arrests. What figures bring you to “645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.”
You cited a statistic from an article but it appears that you can’t explain how they really tabulate that figure. IF the 90% claim is accurate that means 580,000 of the people arrested for violent crime were black and only 23,000 were white. Does that make sense?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:10 amVOR,
Not all reported crimes are cleared by arrest. Not even a majority of them. Moreover, not all crimes are reported (it is estimated that only about one-third to one-half of rapes depending on whom you talk to are).
Here: Incidence rate is when a victim calls the police. The police determine what category of crime it was, within the FBI’s system of reporting, and send the information to the FBI. That’s also called the crime rate.
The crime may result in an arrest of the offender. When it does, that statistic also gets tabulated by the FBI. That’s the arrest rate.
Anyway, we have spent way too much time on whether arrest rate equals crime rate. I’d rather take my daughter to the zoo.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:25 amSo you can’t answer it. Have fun at the zoo.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:29 amToo bad some discrepancies in statistics are less important than others.
Wait… whites not depicted negatively by this discrepancy. Got it. Move on nothing here to be concerned about….
Now, wait a minute, VOR, nk did answer it. Not all violent crimes result in an arrest. But, often, a victim or witness can describe to the police whether the perpetrator was black, white, short, tall, facial hair, etcetera.
lc (1401be) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:34 amlc,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:37 amHe could not show how the figure 645,000 was derived. At the same time he referenced an article that claimed 90% of all violent crime was committed by blacks in cross-racial crimes.
Show me the money. That’s all I am asking. Not blind allegiance to a paragraph in a newspaper article.
My God, VOR, you are either stupid or just dishonest. Nk explained the difference between the crime rate and the arrest rate so thoroughly a 2nd grader could understand it. But somehow you managed to miss it, and falsely claimed nk couldn’t answer your question.
Further, you seem to imply that the discrepancy between crimes reported and arrests is due to the FBI covering up crimes committed by whites. This would be evil if it weren’t so laughably moronic.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:39 amSteverino,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:51 amIf it was so clear why couldn’t he simply produce the numerical calculations or links to them?
Because he mistakenly thought you were capable of higher reasoning?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 11:12 amLook, there’s no call for any of this. VOR, go to this .pdf. The table you are asking for is on page 37 (of 38). You might need to take out your calculator and recrunch the numbers to doublecheck Hutchinson’s math. I haven’t done it, because the numbers were not his point. His point was that cross-racial crimes cannot just be knee-jerked as hate crimes.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 1:31 pmPatterico or DRJ, I wonder if I can impose on you to rescue what would have been my comment #175 from the spam filter.
[Sorry for the delay. I’ve been pre-holidaying but it should show up soon. — DRJ]
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 1:33 pmThank you, DRJ.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 3:44 pmNK,
You said:
“Here: Incidence rate is when a victim calls the police. The police determine what category of crime it was, within the FBI’s system of reporting, and send the information to the FBI. That’s also called the crime rate.
The crime may result in an arrest of the offender. When it does, that statistic also gets tabulated by the FBI. That’s the arrest rate.”
to back up your agreement that 90% of all violent crimes againsts whites are committed by blacks AND that 603,000 total arrests for the year didn’t take into account the incidence rate and that is where 645,000 comes out.
Page 37 and 38 don’t show the “incidence rate”. A cursory look at the tables on the other pages doesn’t even begin to show a 90% rate.
If you don’t wish to back up your opinion with verifiable facts I understand. Thank you for getting the table but it doesn’t have the figures you mentioned.
voiceofreason (d0f015) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:04 pmVOR,
That table is about incidence rate, is about 2005, and it shows 984,980 “crimes of violence” leaving out robbery and assault. It also shows the race of the victim and the “perceived race” of the offender. From which 603,000 may have been arrested. And you are on “ignore” as far as I’m concerned from here on. You are not obtuse, you are aphasic.
nk (09a321) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:19 pmCall me names if you like I don’t really care. You make a big deal of presenting tables but can’t even do the math yoursef because it simply doesn’t support what you say is fact. The perceived race of the offender is in the right hand columns, percentages don’t match up.
But hey as long as it is doesn’t reflect poorly on whites it’s all good, I understand.
voiceofreason (983846) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:33 pmVOR…from #80…
“Reff,
Some things whites never had to put up with:
1. Lynchings for egregious crimes such as looking at a white woman (in the hundreds if not thousands)
2. Being used for illegal medical experiments right into the 1960’s
3. Use crack and go to jail. Snort it (white cocaine form of choice) and get a pass.”
‘Then you have the audacity to paint all of the thousands of marchers as racist because some separatists were there. Compared to the white nationalists who have a charter for segregation and illegal treatment of people of color.”
“The real racism is that being perpertrated against whites? If ever there were a talking point for the Klan that is one and you use it!!”
First, what the heck does your three points have to do with what we were discussing? I know the history better than you do, and nothing there was relevant to our conversation. Why are you afraid to converse, to answer points? Why do you just make up your own points to change the subject???
Second, I never said once that any of the blacks in the Jena march were separatists. You brought up separatists, and I only commented on that. I did, however, call the blacks who marched in Jena racists, and all of them were. They supported black criminals because they were black, against white victims because they were white, two classic definitions of racism/racists. You can’t respond to that, because it is simply true, so, you bring up your three points….
Finally, yes, the real racism in Jena was perpetuated against the whites in Jena…..the blacks in Jena got justice from the legal system, when the appeals overturned the DA’s actions. That is the way the system is supposed to work, and the blacks complained. You just don’t get it, do you..
Blacks can be racists too….and, none of those arguing with you on this string about all of this supports any of the white nationalists programs you are complaining about….on that you are singing to the choir…but, of course, your racism makes you too blind to see that….
reff (99666d) — 11/20/2007 @ 8:59 pmJD…
Thanks for the question from last night….VOR can’t discuss anything…and won’t answer points unless he thinks there is some chance he will make you look bad….and this is the second string this week he has done that to me….
But, I do love the discussion….makes it so easy for any logical person to see his lack of logic…and hence, his lack of respect for the facts of others…
reff (99666d) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:03 pmReff,
” I did, however, call the blacks who marched in Jena racists, and all of them were. They supported black criminals because they were black, against white victims because they were white, two classic definitions of racism/racists. You can’t respond to that, because it is simply true, so, you bring up your three points….”
Exercising their first amendment rights makes them all racist. Now that is quite a claim.
voiceofreason (f5f89c) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:08 pmThe difference between them and the white nationalists is that the marchers in Sept did not have a charter that promotes segregation and black supremacy.
My God, VOR, you are either stupid or just dishonest.
Do we get to vote on it, or just leave it there?
I’d add willfully blind if we’re going to vote on it.
Or mentally a 14 year old. *shrug*
Foxfier (55235c) — 11/20/2007 @ 9:46 pmSteverino, why must you say such things?
VOR could easily be both…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/20/2007 @ 10:04 pmWhat the kids who hung the noose did was wrong….and surely motivated by racism that apparently still persists in their community. However…..what the kids that beat the other kid up is criminal…period! I guess if you don’t agree with other people in this community or feel they are putting you down, you should just beat the hell out of them. In that same community, if the white kids had beat up a black kid instead of hanging a noose, it would have been called a hate crime and prosecuted to the fullest intent of the law. Who are the racist’s now?
lolo (5d6ccc) — 11/20/2007 @ 11:27 pmDoes racism require a charter these days, vor?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/21/2007 @ 2:35 am