Chanda

Roguenuke, you've made a very good case that sometimes witnesses lie, make mistakes, or are otherwise unreliable. Unfortunately, witness accounts are the only "evidence" in this case, and they are conflicting.

It was a provoked attack. There is no way of knowing how much planning went into it, but there was an ongoing feud between the noose hangers/their friends and the black football players that was certain to erupt at some point. Much of the blame goes to authorities who were aware of the racial tension and did nothing to address it.

There are a lot of "should haves" to go around on both sides.

__________________
When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always.---Mahatma Gandhi

Chanda

Attacking the source won't work here, because it links to scanned copies of the actual handwritten witness statements.

I have no idea, but I think those who are so outraged by this are overlooking the bigger issue.

roguenuke

How do you know there was an ongoing feud between these groups? From what I've read (online of course, but that is where almost every person gets their facts on this case anyway), nothing was mentioned about the noose hangers being in any kind of "feud" with the black football players. Some of the witnesses mention a "list", but not one of them mention that it had anything to do with the nooses (although witness statements suggest it could have come from these boys "running their mouths" about the previous weekends events). However, the witness statements also seem to all suggest (those that reference things earlier in the day anyway) that Barker's friend was the one making such statements, and that he was the one who the group were originally trying to provoke into starting something with them throughout the morning. The attention was turned to Barker for standing up for his friend in the cafeteria. (By the way, the group of black football players were the ones INITIALLY trying to provoke a fight throughout the morning.) Also, the events from the weekend before had nothing to do with the nooses. If you read the statements and information on these events, even if you assume the guy that punched Bailey at the party was racist (not such a hard thing to do, but I wasn't there, and I don't know him, so I can't really say for sure), Bailey getting assaulted at that party had absolutely nothing to do with the nooses. And the encounter the following night had to do with the party, again not the nooses.
However, I still believe no matter how much provoking a person receives, it is no excuse for attacking another person, especially not 6 on 1 (1 on 1 could have been considered fair but still not justified and pretty cowardly to attack from behind). Violence is not a good way to stand up for yourself.
From what I've been told, the hearing was private. So unless I'm mistaken or you were there, you can't say for sure that the ONLY evidence was the witness statements. So there could have been more that we are just not being told about. Obviously facts in this case have been getting messed up from both sides.

LaMidRighter

[quote] OMFG!?!!?!? That's what you consider a credible source? No wonder you're getting your clock cleaned in this debate.

UMMMKay.....let's make this a little easier to understand.

That's one.
That's two.



The names seemed pretty consistent to me. But then again, I am not on either side here, you, on the other hand have some kind of twisted desire to defend the attackers. By the way, if you commit a crime and only witness testimony is available, and works, it's not unfair, it's evidence. Oh, and the defender is NOT a good point of crying unfairness and racism since it is his JOB to DEFEND the clients, if the PD did a bad job due to conflicts(i.e. racism) or blatant ignorance he should be disbarred, but that doesn't make the process unfair. What part of all of this do you not understand?


Bull****. The evidence is solid and clear, you just don't like the facts of the case.

__________________
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

LMR

LaMidRighter

[quote] I don't know if the noose thing was just a stupid prank or was hate motivated to tell you the truth, either way it was a tasteless gesture, that point has been more than conceded by everyone, the big problem with usage of many of the factors leading up to the attack of the victim is that they are trying to use these things as some weird sort of justification when the victim wasn't related to anything prior to getting jumped. Seems that standing up for your friends isn't okay if you happen to not be the same color as the attackers but it is okay to attack if offended by a simple statement(but only if you're a minority) using Chanda's logic. That's what it's looking like anyway. Absolutely correct, you got the situation exactly right in this summation.
The only area of this statement I would disagree with is the immediate threat of violence, fighting words, or threats against one's family, but for the most part I agree with you. It seems Barker did none of these though.
True, which is why only activists will ignore that fact.

Caine

Oh yeah? And whats the bigger issue?


Also, what does this say about the BET Network for honoring teens who have received their fame from attacking and brutally beating another individual because of the color of his skin?

__________________
I voted for Bob Barr.

Chanda

How do you know the fair barn assault had absolutely nothing to do with the nooses? Alan Bean of Friends for Justice has spent a lot of time in Jena, truth seeking, examining documents, and talking with many people on both sides. I find him a credible source because he is not from Jena and there is no reason for him to be biased for either side He said Justin Sloan attacked Robert Bailey at the fair barn because of a running feud between the noose-hangers (and their friends) and the black athletes. Several sources have stated that Justin Barker was friends with the noose-hangers. In fact, the friend that Barker was "defending" in the lunch hour altercation was Tony Knapp, one of the admitted noose-hangers.

I have never condoned the attack. From the beginning, I have said the attackers should be punished, but only after a fair trial.

If there were any useful evidence at the hearing, it would have been used in the trial, and the prosecutors would not have been forced to rely on biased witnesses to make their case, like Justin Cooper, another of the admitted noose-hangers.

Chanda

OMFG!!!!! Are you suggesting the scanned handwritten witness statements linked to were fabricated by that site? No wonder you have delusions about some sort of clock cleaning.

Where do you see Mychal Bell named as a participant in either of those two witness statements?

No, obviously not.

If the PD does nothing to present a defense, the trial is unfair.

I don't understand why you think it's fair.

Regarding Mychal Bell, the facts are in dispute. The evidence (conflicting witness statements) is not "solid and clear" by any stretch of the imagination.

dixon76710

You are assuming he had a defense to present. Usually when the accused doesnt present a defense, they dont have one to present.

LaMidRighter

That's the thing the sympathizers aren't getting.