• 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

Public offense isn't broad at all. Nice try though, you think I wouldn't verify your posts?

public offense = a term that is used to describe the conduct that is in violation of existing laws and is punishable by laws.

What is PUBLIC OFFENSE? definition of PUBLIC OFFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

lynching refers to someone accused of legal crime be it by a formal or informal group, and then executed without any due process.

It certainly includes that definition, but there is no need for it to be a "legal crime." Read that federal definition again - "actual or supposed public offense." Blacks were lynched for real and imagined 'crimes.' Do you really think when the KKK strung a black man up on an oak branch that we'd call it one thing if he was accused of rape and another if the 'crime' was holding hands with a white woman (non-crime) or working to get blacks the opportunity to vote (non-crime). Of course not - they'd both be lynchings. Everyone but you accepts this. Besides, there's a very good chance "rape" in that era would include any sexual relations with a white woman, which was as made up a "crime" as the others.
 
So....what it suicide or a murder? Curious minds want to know.
 
Depend on the area you're in, especially a good pair of Jordans that can be anywhere from 100 to 300+ dollars shoes are definitely something to fight over in poor areas. I remember my dad telling me to wear my ****ty sneakers whenever we go to Bridgeport because he recalled a man having been killed because he strolled into a bad side of town with 100+ dollar brand new shiny Jordans.

Although I agree with you, not that many people necessarily would make a fuss over shoes rather than steal something else that is a lot more accessible and maybe just as valuable.
Shoes (reported to be not his and 2 sizes too small) seem to be the biggest tell here.
 
Just out of curiosity...has it been mentioned anywhere if his 31 year old former girlfriend has been investigated for child abuse? NC Age of Consent laws would make it illegal for anyone 17 and under to be in a relationship with anyone more than 4 years their senior.
 
You mean he may have stolen them?
Dood...why would he (the reported owner of very nice shoes) steal sneakers 2 sizes too small, and what would he have done with his shoes?
 
Shoes (reported to be not his and 2 sizes too small) seem to be the biggest tell here.

This is definitely suspicious, as are some other things.

However, it could mean he was robbed by someone creative. Or it could mean that he ran afoul of some guy because of his ex (?) girlfriend. Maybe it was him trying to get with some other woman.

Honestly the last thing I think it was was a real "lynching". It could have simply been a murder. Or it could have still been a suicide, but he could have had help. There does need to be a real investigation conducted but it needs to be done without basing it on the assumption that this involved some group or was a lynching from the getgo.
 
Just out of curiosity...has it been mentioned anywhere if his 31 year old former girlfriend has been investigated for child abuse? NC Age of Consent laws would make it illegal for anyone 17 and under to be in a relationship with anyone more than 4 years their senior.

Can you link to proof of this. From what I've been reading, age of consent is 16, with no qualifiers for age gaps. The only things restricted when it comes to consent are based on other factors, such as teacher, guardian, parent, etc.

According to wikipedia, there is a gap exception for 13, 14, and 15 year olds, but it is six years.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Can you link to proof of this. From what I've been reading, age of consent is 16, with no qualifiers for age gaps. The only things restricted when it comes to consent are based on other factors, such as teacher, guardian, parent, etc.

According to wikipedia, there is a gap exception for 13, 14, and 15 year olds, but it is six years.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every state varies. In some states it is as early as 13 (with the provision that the other party be older and within 4 years). Others, it is 16 with the consent extending to people 9 years older or less. (example- a 16 year old can consent to relationship with a 25 year old but not a 26 year old)

I may be wrong with NC. The table shows the age of consent with the max year differential of 4 years but I may be reading that incorrectly.
North Carolina 16 N/A 4 12
Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements: Summary of Current State Laws
 
Read the articles in the OP, that information is attributed to the family, not the authorities.

The local authorities were interviewed for the stories, because there are statements attributed to them, but nothing related to "discrepancies" in belt ownership or shoe size. If there was anything to the claims, don't you think the multiple reporters would have actually asked, on record, for an official response?

That is my point. How can the family know about something that has disappeared and that is not in the police reports?
 
Every state varies. In some states it is as early as 13 (with the provision that the other party be older and within 4 years). Others, it is 16 with the consent extending to people 9 years older or less. (example- a 16 year old can consent to relationship with a 25 year old but not a 26 year old)

I may be wrong with NC. The table shows the age of consent with the max year differential of 4 years but I may be reading that incorrectly.
North Carolina 16 N/A 4 12
Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements: Summary of Current State Laws

It's actually better explained further down on that page. That table is really horrible at properly explaining these laws.

In North Carolina, the age of consent is 16. Sexual intercourse with someone who is under the age of consent is only illegal if the defendant is: (1) at least 4 years older than the victim and (2) at least 12 years of age (the age at which the defendant can be prosecuted).
 
It comes from a guy named "Lynch" in Virginia or W. Virginia who was a self appointed judge in his town during the Revolutionary War who went out with groups of people, "mobs", convicting Loyalists, "Tories", before, during, and after the Revolutionary War.

The Original Lynch Mob

Lynching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100% correct

some how people want to ignore this fact and the fact that "race" doesnt impact it nor does "legal" crimes lol

your post like many others will be ignore by one person
 
I quoted her. Believe what you want.

And I quoted the CNN article. The subject of this thread even says she says it was a lynching. So that contradicts your claim that she hasn't said a crime was committed. She most certainly has. And she may be right, but stop saying she never said a crime was committed.
 
You're hilarious - I guess you're assuming when the poster said "would hardly be the first" that he implied "this year."



I'm not sure what is odd about discussing this - the situation is extremely unusual, with as you admit lots of very curious, unanswered questions. And I'm not surprised you'd look forward to more thread like it since you've participated in this one and not many others you could have chosen this morning. Something about it draws your attention like the rest of us.

So we're supposed to participate in every thread on the board or it's something noteworthy? Please.

My attention was drawn the other day to the thread title. And this one is interesting to you and others because you're already convinced there was a racial motivation here. That's also why the NAACP is involved. The OP tried to deny there was any racial aspects to this story. And we all know that's bull****.
 
The OP tried to deny there was any racial aspects to this story. And we all know that's bull****.

lol do you ever make a post that isn't factually wrong or a lie
if you disagree in your next post simply quote me saying "there are no racial aspects to this story"
 
lol do you ever make a post that isn't factually wrong or a lie
if you disagree in your next post simply quote me saying "there are no racial aspects to this story"

So you admit you posted this because of the perceived racial element to the story, even though you repeatedly pushed back on the application of the word "lynch" to racism.

Got it.
 
So you admit you posted this because of the perceived racial element to the story, even though you repeatedly pushed back on the application of the word "lynch" to racism.

Got it.

Translation: you have no quote of me saying the lie you made up, thats what i thought. Maybe in your NEXT post you can back up the lie you posted. We will be waiting.
 
Translation: you have no quote of me saying the lie you made up, thats what i thought. Maybe in your NEXT post you can back up the lie you posted. We will be waiting.

You want me to copy all of the quotes you made in this thread saying that the word "lynch" has no racist element?

Sorry, you and whoever else is in the "we" waiting with you is going to have to wait. There are too many of those posts from you in here.
 
And I quoted the CNN article. The subject of this thread even says she says it was a lynching. So that contradicts your claim that she hasn't said a crime was committed. She most certainly has. And she may be right, but stop saying she never said a crime was committed.

Here's the quote from the article again:

Claudia Lacy says she can accept anything: even that her youngest son committed suicide -- if it's proven and explained to her.However, she says, local and state investigators have done neither to support their theory that Lennon Lacy hanged himself one summer night."That's all I've ever asked for: what is due, owed rightfully to me and my family -- justice. Prove to me what happened to my child,"

In my mind, if she can accept that her son committed suicide, and directly asks for the police to "justice - prove to me what happened to my child" and not "prove that he was lynched by some racist white boys" then she's not certain what happened, she suspects he was murdered, but is willing to accept that no murder occurred. And her request is for a proper investigation, not a conviction.

Any more than that, I can't say.
 
Here's the quote from the article again:



In my mind, if she can accept that her son committed suicide, and directly asks for the police to "justice - prove to me what happened to my child" and not "prove that he was lynched by some racist white boys" then she's not certain what happened, she suspects he was murdered, but is willing to accept that no murder occurred. And her request is for a proper investigation, not a conviction.

Any more than that, I can't say.

So the title of the OP is wrong, and she didn't really say this was a lynching (which is a crime).

By the way, in the post of mine that you quoted, I never said anything about "racist white boys" so I have no idea why you put that in quotation marks as if I did. I used the word "crime".
 
So we're supposed to participate in every thread on the board or it's something noteworthy? Please.

I have no idea how you made that (confusing) leap. You said you looked forward to more threads like this one. Makes sense because for some reason this one interested you. I'd imagine we'd all look forward to more threads that interest us.

My attention was drawn the other day to the thread title. And this one is interesting to you and others because you're already convinced there was a racial motivation here. That's also why the NAACP is involved. The OP tried to deny there was any racial aspects to this story. And we all know that's bull****.

I'm not convinced he was murdered. About the only thing that's clear based on the reporting so far is the investigation was incompetent or at least incomplete with lots of obvious and significant unanswered questions.

But IF there was a murder, the fact that he was hanged seems to suggest a racial motivation.
 
I have no idea how you made that (confusing) leap. You said you looked forward to more threads like this one. Makes sense because for some reason this one interested you. I'd imagine we'd all look forward to more threads that interest us.



I'm not convinced he was murdered. About the only thing that's clear based on the reporting so far is the investigation was incompetent or at least incomplete with lots of obvious and significant unanswered questions.

But IF there was a murder, the fact that he was hanged seems to suggest a racial motivation.

I'm not convinced of anything either way in this story. I'm sure there is a lot the police know that they won't release even to the family. The shoe thing is still odd. Deaths being ruled suicide have on occasion been proven otherwise with further investigation, including exhumation of bodies decades after the death.

I hope for the mother's sake she gets the answers - good, bad or otherwise.
 
That is my point. How can the family know about something that has disappeared and that is not in the police reports?

Because its their opinion, just like its their opinion that he was murdered.
 
1.)You want me to copy all of the quotes you made in this thread saying that the word "lynch" has no racist element?

Sorry, you and whoever else is in the "we" waiting with you is going to have to wait. There are too many of those posts from you in here.

LAMO look at you desperately trying to backpedal! FAIL
The word lynch in fact is not affected by race and that fact will never change.

The lie you made up was this "The OP tried to deny there was any racial aspects to this story. And we all know that's bull****."

that is a lie and its unsupportable thats why you keep deflecting and DODGING the request. In the future simply dont post lies and you can avoid these mistakes.Your post fails and facts win again
 
LAMO look at you desperately trying to backpedal! FAIL
The word lynch in fact is not affected by race and that fact will never change.

The lie you made up was this "The OP tried to deny there was any racial aspects to this story. And we all know that's bull****."

that is a lie and its unsupportable thats why you keep deflecting and DODGING the request. In the future simply dont post lies and you can avoid these mistakes.Your post fails and facts win again

So the entire purpose of the thread was to showcase a story about some kid whose death was ruled a suicide and his mother disagrees. No racial element at all.

Okay.

Then CNN went off the rails to imply racial elements throughout that entire article. There's obviously no racial element in this story. I wonder why the NAACP is involved in it. Apparently they're in the wrong place.

So it's just a thread about suicide that doesn't appear to the mother to be suicide. Sad, but hardly breaking news.
 
Back
Top Bottom