• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

N.C. teen's hanging death ruled a suicide; mother says it was a lynching

Northern Light said:
Got called far-left just the other day. Now I'm far-right.

It's VERY amusing to watch people on these boards scramble to try and define me in their limited scope whenever I have something substantive to say.
Click to expand...

Always glad to be a source of amusement. My statement stands. 'Race card' is a bull**** excuse for those denying racism exists.
 
Wiggen said:
Funny, the KKK and the other white terrorists of the 'old' south never seemed to have too much trouble in lynching anybody.
Click to expand...

Is this where we ignore the fact that there's a 90% chance that the murderer--if it's actually a murser--is black?
 
Wiggen said:
Always glad to be a source of amusement. My statement stands. 'Race card' is a bull**** excuse for those denying racism exists.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to cite anywhere in my entire posting history where I said that racism doesn't exist.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Uh huh, and here is the definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

"to kill (someone) illegally as punishment for a crime"

"to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction"

Lynch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the OXFORD DICTIONARIES

"(Of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of your definitions refute my point that it must be someone being accused of a crime to be a lynching. The whole point of a lynching that I made was that the person was ACCUSED of a crime and was not given DUE PROCESS.

READ THINGS

Apparently you were incapable of reading the key word in my original definition of lynch "ACCUSED of a crime"
Click to expand...

I gotta say you're right. Lynchings were historically carried out because there was a perceived crime or moral offense. The most famous cases of lynchings all followed the same trajectory. Emmett Till was lynched for the supposed crime of hitting on a white woman. The Committee of Vigilance was started to supposedly address crime. There really is no context in which lynchings weren't used in order to address perceived crimes, whether they actually happened or not.
 
Wiggen said:
Have there been any protests, marches, demonstrations, rioting or looting over this incident? I didn't see any newscasts reporting that. Maybe I missed it. You seem to be taking the position that nobody has a right to even question the official party line on this death. Is that the case?
Click to expand...
Question away. its just ridiculous to get spun up on anything until you know. That IS precisely what happened in Ferguson. Id prefer not to see it happen again.
 
I had s friend when I was 18 (Best friend at the time) who proceeded to take money out of the bank, worked out with his girlfriend, and went for a bike ride. After he got back from his bike ride, he told his girl friend to wait outside while he sneaked into his parents basement window. Three minutes later he shot himself in the face and was killed instantly. By all accounts, it was a pretty normal day, and the girl friend nor any of his friends, myself included had ANY idea he was feeling this way.

There may be something to this story as not all stories are the same, but when it comes to suicide, it's usually the people closest to the individual that have no idea, this poor kids Mom included.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I had s friend when I was 18 (Best friend at the time) who proceeded to take money out of the bank, worked out with his girlfriend, and went for a bike ride. After he got back from his bike ride, he told his girl friend to wait outside while he sneaked into his parents basement window. Three minutes later he shot himself in the face and was killed instantly. By all accounts, it was a pretty normal day, and the girl friend nor any of his friends, myself included had ANY idea he was feeling this way.

There may be something to this story as not all stories are the same, but when it comes to suicide, it's usually the people closest to the individual that have no idea, this poor kids Mom included.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I had a friend back in Compton who was by all means was well on his way to the NBA by 14 years of age. He was putting up Kobe numbers against guys who were 10 year older than him. By Compton standards, he had a perfect life, perfect girlfriend and parents who weren't rich, but had steady jobs and had stayed away from drugs in the early 90s (this is a bit of an accomplishment in 1990s California). One day after school, Jamie goes into his garage, hangs himself. The suicide note said "I can't take it anymore. I'm sorry." - Nobody saw it coming. When I mean nobody, I mean nobody. Not his parents. Not his teammates. Not his girlfriend. Not his friends. It was really sad because he literally could have become the next big thing in the NBA if he had kept going (and this is coming from someone who takes such claims with a grain of salt). Anywho, yeah I'll hold judgement on this until more evidence comes forward. It seems unlikely that somebody would just up and decide to hang themselves, but from personal experience, it's not impossible.
 
We don't know if this was a lynching or not, but this definitely needs to be investigated much more deeply.
 
Hatuey said:
I gotta say you're right. Lynchings were historically carried out because there was a perceived crime or moral offense. The most famous cases of lynchings all followed the same trajectory. Emmett Till was lynched for the supposed crime of hitting on a white woman. The Committee of Vigilance was started to supposedly address crime. There really is no context in which lynchings weren't used in order to address perceived crimes, whether they actually happened or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the basis of a lynch is that someone is accused of a legal crime, whether that crime is assault, murder, what-have-you. And then said person is killed without trial, not sure why agent J was getting into all this bullcrap about being accused of "perceived crimes" there is no such thing in terms of the legal definition of a crime.

simplified legal definition of a crime from a legal dictionary = "A violation of a law."

He used the non-legal definition of crime and I don't think the crime used in lynch referred to that crime, but rather, the legal definition of crime (which is way less general than the other crime which is simply "any horrendous act (there are tons of horrendous but LEGAL acts) due to the second part of the definition of lynching which is "without a legal trial."

One does not go to trial because someone accuses them of a perceived crime like "HE CHEATED ON ME." Bull****, you go to court because you actually violated a law, not because someone whines.

Agent J doesn't really know how to do anything though other than all caps and shout "FACTS, LINK, DICTIONARIEZ ON MY SIDE, FACTS, LINK, DICTIONARIEZ, YOU'RE 100% FALSE, FACTS ALWAYS WIN, FACTS ALWAYS WINS."
 
Luftwaffe said:
Exactly, the basis of a lynch is that someone is accused of a legal crime, whether that crime is assault, murder, what-have-you.
Click to expand...

Eh, not always. I agree with the rest but Emmett Till wasn't lynched for committing a "legal crime". He flirted with a white woman. That wasn't a crime. The people who lynched him just thought it was a personal offense (which is why I specifically referenced it in my post). The rest you're right about, but lynchings are about a perceived offence. Whether that offense is a crime or moral offense is another topic but lynchings didn't always occur because a crime was thought to have occurred. They happened when a group of people felt an offense of some sort had been committed.
 
AGENT J said:
N.C. teen's death a lynching, mother says - CNN.com


North Carolina protesters call for fresh probe in teen's hanging | Reuters
FBI investigating possible lynching - ABC57 News - See the Difference Michiana
Ruled a suicide, black teen
North Carolina teen's hanging ruled a suicide, but was it a lynching? - LA Times

I wasnt there, dont know what happened but the amount of questions, things that done add up and short comings on the reports and investigation all leave me with an OPINION there was some type of foul play and this wasnt a suicide.

Like the person(s) who burned that girl up I hope they catch them, its very quick justice and death penalties.

just to rehash some of the concerns according to the articles:

- he packed a gym back, washed close and sports equipment and lied out some clothes before leaving to exercise
- took a selfie of himself before so
- a 52yr old woman made the 911 call and supposedly removed the 207lb teen from where he was hanging
- Lennon was 5-foot-9. The crossbar of the swing set frame he was found hanging from was 7-foot-6 and nothing at the scene to explain how he would of hung himself
- belts (possible dog leashes) that were used werent his, they also werent cut which would have probably been needed to bring the teen down
- the shoes he was found in were not his and 2 sizes too small, and these shoes never made it into the medical examiners office.

seems way to shady to me not to be some type of foul play
Click to expand...
He was a black dude in a small, mostly White town with an older White girlfriend who was found hanged. The police department in that town swept it under the rug instead of investigating it even though several elements of his death were suspicious. Sounds like something straight out of the 1950s - A group of White guys are pissed that a Black guy is dating a White woman - they kill him and, since it's a small racist town, get the police to cover it up.
 
Goshin said:
And very few if any people in NC today care about such things enough to kill a young man over it.
Click to expand...

You don't think so? I disagree.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
He was a black dude in a small, mostly White town with an older White girlfriend who was found hanged. The police department in that town swept it under the rug instead of investigating it even though several elements of his death were suspicious. Sounds like something straight out of the 1950s - A group of White guys are pissed that a Black guy is dating a White woman - they kill him and, since it's a small racist town, get the police to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Hanlon's Razor (variation attributed to Einstein) - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

From what I've read the mother isn't buying the suicide story in large part because the official account makes no sense, and because the police did an apparently poor job of investigating. Seems she's being pretty rational, and from what I've read just wants a competent investigation that explains some of what appears unexplainable at this point.

BTW, this happened in N.C. and I couldn't locate their definition of the crime of lynching, but here's how S.C. law describes the act: https://web.archive.org/web/20070626025747/http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c003.htm

SECTION 16-3-210. Lynching in the first degree.

Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person shall constitute the crime of lynching in the first degree and shall be a felony.
Click to expand...

Doesn't appear it matters at all why the mob engaged in the act.... So, if "two or more people" decided to kill the guy because they didn't like the shoes he was wearing (pick any reason, or no reason), it's a lynching in S.C. at least.
 
Hatuey said:
I gotta say you're right. Lynchings were historically carried out because there was a perceived crime or moral offense. The most famous cases of lynchings all followed the same trajectory. Emmett Till was lynched for the supposed crime of hitting on a white woman. The Committee of Vigilance was started to supposedly address crime. There really is no context in which lynchings weren't used in order to address perceived crimes, whether they actually happened or not.
Click to expand...

he was actually claiming the opposite, his stance was it was always a LEGAL crime, NOT perceived and by definition that was false so you actually disagree with him
 
Luftwaffe said:
Exactly, the basis of a lynch is that someone is accused of a legal crime, whether that crime is assault, murder, what-have-you. And then said person is killed without trial, not sure why agent J was getting into all this bullcrap about being accused of "perceived crimes" there is no such thing in terms of the legal definition of a crime.

simplified legal definition of a crime from a legal dictionary = "A violation of a law."

He used the non-legal definition of crime and I don't think the crime used in lynch referred to that crime, but rather, the legal definition of crime (which is way less general than the other crime which is simply "any horrendous act (there are tons of horrendous but LEGAL acts) due to the second part of the definition of lynching which is "without a legal trial."

One does not go to trial because someone accuses them of a perceived crime like "HE CHEATED ON ME." Bull****, you go to court because you actually violated a law, not because someone whines.

Agent J doesn't really know how to do anything though other than all caps and shout "FACTS, LINK, DICTIONARIEZ ON MY SIDE, FACTS, LINK, DICTIONARIEZ, YOU'RE 100% FALSE, FACTS ALWAYS WIN, FACTS ALWAYS WINS."
Click to expand...

this was already proven false, repeating it wont change that fact, also the other post doesnt actually agree with you because they said PERCEIVED crime, they understand the definition. :shrug:

this is why you wont answer my question
for further info please refer to post 62

facts win again
 
Hatuey said:
Eh, not always. I agree with the rest but Emmett Till wasn't lynched for committing a "legal crime". He flirted with a white woman. That wasn't a crime. The people who lynched him just thought it was a personal offense (which is why I specifically referenced it in my post). The rest you're right about, but lynchings are about a perceived offence. Whether that offense is a crime or moral offense is another topic but lynchings didn't always occur because a crime was thought to have occurred. They happened when a group of people felt an offense of some sort had been committed.
Click to expand...

100% correct, LEGAL crime doesnt matter
just like many lynchings its based on the judgement/feelings/perception of they lynchers not legality
 
ThePlayDrive said:
He was a black dude in a small, mostly White town with an older White girlfriend who was found hanged. The police department in that town swept it under the rug instead of investigating it even though several elements of his death were suspicious. Sounds like something straight out of the 1950s - A group of White guys are pissed that a Black guy is dating a White woman - they kill him and, since it's a small racist town, get the police to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Dont know if it goes that deep but it definitely seems like foul play to me and there definitely needs to be a deeper outside investigation.
 
danarhea said:
You don't think so? I disagree.
Click to expand...

Id have to disagree also, not saying thats what happened yet just saying I dont agree with the words "very few if any people in NC today care about such things", that ill never agree with. I have family in NC and thats not the case compared to pittsburgh, pa. By personal experience its much more racist than Pittsburgh. But again that doesnt mean this was in fact based on such.

Now as far as the "killing" over race is concerned id like to think that NOBODY in america could do something so irrational and evil but thats not the case.
 
AGENT J said:
100% correct, LEGAL crime doesnt matter
just like many lynchings its based on the judgement/feelings/perception of they lynchers not legality
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as saying "legal crime" doesn't matter. An offense was required for a lynching to take place. That offense was often interpreted by the crowd to be a crime. The middle ground between your argument and his is that yes, crimes mattered but only in the sense that crowds lynched when they thought a crime (in the legal, religious, or moral sense) had been committed. Crowds that lynched people abided by both a law of the land mentality and violations of secular laws to justify lynching. So yes, crimes did matter, but only because they were used within the wider definition which includes offenses to their personal values.
 
Hatuey said:
It's not as simple as saying "legal crime" doesn't matter. An offense was required for a lynching to take place. That offense was often interpreted by the crowd to be a crime. The middle ground between your argument and his is that yes, crimes mattered but only in the sense that crowds lynched when they thought a crime (in the legal, religious, or moral sense) had been committed. Crowds that lynched people abided by both a law of the land mentality and violations of secular laws to justify lynching. So yes, crimes did matter, but only because they were used within the wider definition which includes offenses to their personal values.
Click to expand...
actually in context to this discussion thats been going on yes it is . . the definition makes it that easy . . . it COULD be legal crime it could also just be a perceived crime, it could be either, the definition makes it that way not me. I never said if its legal that negates anything only that the legal(adj) part doesnt matter, just the crime/offense part.

you are actually saying what i have said the entire time you just dont know it lol

There is no MIDDLE between me and him. There was no "real" argument, i presented the facts and definition of the word and he tried (and failed) to argue against them. Guess you didnt read the whole thread (i dont blame you) or misunderstood. There are facts and he was factually wrong. Why was he wrong? simply because i gave him an example of what a lynching COULD be and he said it was false. That example was this:

A black man is hung by a group for dating a white woman, they hung him for dating a white women and they believe that is wrong.

he stated that this would not be a lynching because the black kid wasnt hung for a LEGAL crime, his statement was 100% false. He STILL denies this fact.

So instead of getting off track ill be sticking to the only real item in question here. Is my example and statement true? COULD that be an example of lynching? yes or no
 
Wiggen said:
Not common, perhaps, but hardly rare.

Lynching Statistics

Of course since these statistics are almost 50 years old, the numbers will have increased.
Click to expand...
Rare is the more accurate description.
As the stats you use include those that are quite old and really not relevant to today.
Had you used the other link, you would have seen the breakdown by year.
Which clearly shows it is quite rare past the 1950's, especially considering population increase.


Lynching Statistics by Year
 
Hicup said:
I had s friend when I was 18 (Best friend at the time) who proceeded to take money out of the bank, worked out with his girlfriend, and went for a bike ride. After he got back from his bike ride, he told his girl friend to wait outside while he sneaked into his parents basement window. Three minutes later he shot himself in the face and was killed instantly. By all accounts, it was a pretty normal day, and the girl friend nor any of his friends, myself included had ANY idea he was feeling this way.

There may be something to this story as not all stories are the same, but when it comes to suicide, it's usually the people closest to the individual that have no idea, this poor kids Mom included.


Tim-
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth to this.

As for this case, if the evidence presented is true, then there could be more to the story. But a mother simply stating "my son would not kill himself," is not a valid reason at all to reinvestigate.
 
Hatuey said:
It's not as simple as saying "legal crime" doesn't matter. An offense was required for a lynching to take place. That offense was often interpreted by the crowd to be a crime. The middle ground between your argument and his is that yes, crimes mattered but only in the sense that crowds lynched when they thought a crime (in the legal, religious, or moral sense) had been committed. Crowds that lynched people abided by both a law of the land mentality and violations of secular laws to justify lynching. So yes, crimes did matter, but only because they were used within the wider definition which includes offenses to their personal values.
Click to expand...

In South Carolina, that's not the case. Read the law - all a "Lynching" required per the statute was:

1) mob (two or more people)
2) "any" act of violence
3) leading to death.

So the motive could be anything that a crowd could come up with - being black and in the wrong place at the wrong time might be enough of an "offense."
 
Middleground said:
There is a lot of truth to this.

As for this case, if the evidence presented is true, then there could be more to the story. But a mother simply stating "my son would not kill himself," is not a valid reason at all to reinvestigate.
Click to expand...

That's not really at all what she said - it's more like "my son wouldn't take off his brand new sneakers, put on shoes he doesn't own two sizes too small, and hang himself with belts/dog leashes that aren't his, etc... and the police have offered no answers why/how this COULD be the case." There do appear to be some big holes in the story so far.
 
Wiggen said:
Funny, the KKK and the other white terrorists of the 'old' south never seemed to have too much trouble in lynching anybody.
Click to expand...

That's funny to you?

I don't think anyone here thinks what they did decades ago in the "old south" was funny, and unless I misread the OP, this topic isn't about something that happened in the "old south". I thought this young man died recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom