Citizen

To Dixon and Caine, you are hopeless racist. The black kid was invited to the party. The black kid was beaten up by several white kids. He did not hit back. The black kid was hit with beer bottles. These are all fats. I have given you several references to these facts. You refuse to aknowledge the facts.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Jena 6

Read the non biased facts PLEASE............................................ .....

__________________
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme

roguenuke

The difference is that law enforcement officials have to have proof or witnesses to back up their hearsay. If a law enforcement official says that a person committed something because 'Joe Shmo' says he did, then there has to be proof that a crime was committed and 'Joe Shmo' would have to testify. It would probably still be a weak case but the charges could still be filed and then it would be up to a jury/judge to decide who's telling the truth. In the case of Alan Bean, he just says there has been an injustice, and everyone believes his accounts from the 'Joe Shmo's' that he has talked to and agrees with him. There are plenty of conflicting stories out there about all that happened, and Alan Bean still hasn't provided sufficient "proof" that an injustice any greater than overcharging has occurred. And overcharging has been covered multiple times in this thread as being something that many DAs across the country use for plea bargaining purposes, without any racial bias at all.

So, where is the proof that Walters is racist and that is why these guys were charged more severely due to skin color? How the town votes in an election that occurred 20 years ago or examples of a few people in town being racist, isn't proof that Walters or even most of the white people in town are racist. The election could be ignorance or just as simple as they wanted a change in the government and would take anyone. Besides, the vote thing probably only took into account those people who did vote (and I'd be willing to bet not everyone did, considering how many people don't vote for president) and since voting is secret, no one can point out WHO in the town actually voted for the guy. And the other crimes that could be connected to the attack have conflicting stories as to what happened. The nooses were not able to be charged under state laws, therefore, Walters would have very little to do with charges brought up for this instance even if the feds had decided to charge them. The other two events were charged according to what the police at the scene gathered from the scene and witness statements. If there was fault in the evidence from either of these two events (although the documents I've seen for both these events seem to fit with the charges in both cases), technically, it would most likely fall on the police, not on the DA. So, if the charges weren't appropriate for these two cases, either the police are all covering up the real stories or not ratting out the DA for bringing charges that don't fit with the evidence and statements from those incidents. Also, if these two incidents weren't charged fairly, then why weren't Bailey and his friends and family bringing it up before, why did it come up only after people started yelling "racism" over their own charges? If Bailey really got attacked by a group of white guys at that party and hit with a beer bottle, then he should have bought something up about it to the police or DA before Sloan ever made it to court. The DA brings charges based on evidence, normally gathered from the police. He wasn't at the incidents or even on scene when the police arrived.

roguenuke

How exactly is this site non-biased? There are plenty of other sites out there that have information that conflicts with what this site claims. Unless you have done the research yourself and it all fits with what this site claims, then you really don't know that this is non-biased.

Citizen

Snopes defuses rumors. That is the whole purpose of the web site. If you look in any news paper or newscast you will find the same information that is in Snoops. Not those racist lies on those other websites.

__________________
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme

DeeJayH

nowhere in your source do i see that he was invited to the party
not in the quoted email, nor in snopes explanation of events

roguenuke

First, that is THEIR claim, it does not mean they are non-biased. Most sites that have information on this case will claim to be non-biased. But, then again, maybe they don't do as extensive research as they claim and are just wrong in the facts they are printing about this case. Anyone can be wrong. Second, I don't trust the news to be non-biased either, considering a few days ago, I read a news article dealing with this case that had in it that the nooses were hung shortly before the attack on Barker. This is misleading. Shortly to me in this case should mean within a day or two or maybe a week tops, not 3 months. The more time that passes between an "instigative" act and a violent retaliation for that act, the less credibility is put into the excuse "he started it". The article didn't even mention the other incidents. The further along this case gets, the more news sources are changing their stories anyway. Some have even apologized for putting out information before ensuring that it was correct.

roguenuke

After checking more in-depth into Snopes, I believe my second assertion on this is most likely. They in fact, did not actually go to Jena to research the information they put out, but just referenced other websites for their information. The references they use can be found at the bottom of the page. Therefore, they don't truly know if what they are putting out is correct. They are simply looking at what others have written on this case, and putting it all together on their own site. They still could be biased. This website however would be no more reliable than what Wikipedia has written on this case. Possibly even less, since even in their "site information" section they say that the information is gathered and written up by just two people, whereas, Wikipedia is edited by a group of people based on information received through others. And Wikipedia references a whole lot more information than the couple who runs Snopes.

Citizen

Nowhere does it say that he was not invited nor does it say that the party was an invitation only party.

__________________
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme

Caine

Okay,
I like this part thought.....

My source was produced more recently, giving my source more time to diffuse the media myths surrounding the incident.

EDIT: The source says nothing about the boy being invited to the party


EDIT: I also love how Snopes says "Predominately" attended by whites. As if this somehow makes the party inherently racist! If they didn't realize, the United States is "Predominately" populated by whites. I guess this makes our nation racist because we whites won't stop breeding and let blacks catch up.

DeeJayH

except of course for the person at the door denying entrance
and in your mind that means
you call that FACTS ?
*goes to check ESPN and Blogs for the facts*