Citizen

Snoops puts out accurate data. They check their sources. They put out the data that has been proven to be fact. Your one source is all hear say.

There are plenty of sources that support the facts. You can get anything from the INTERNET, why not try newspaper sources instead of the junk you hunted down.


If this was justified, then did the Louisiana's 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturn the charge because he had been had been tried improperly as an adult.
'Jena 6' conviction vacated -- chicagotribune.com

__________________
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme

Citizen

I have posted links to the facts time and time again. You refuse to acknowledge fact because the facts will dispell your reasons to continue to hate a group of people baised on your biases and ingorance. What source or than a couple of opinion pages have you posted to prove me wring? NONE!

DeeJayH

when others post reasonable links, there is no reason for everybody to post links, except in rebuttal
so far i have seen junk to support the Jena 6 thugs
and credible sites posted to support what happened, and how it turned out
and i learned early on, if a person takes links from hate groups, Espn and Blogs over multiple News sources, i could bury you in links but it would not change your racist mind.

Citizen

Then that means that you did not read the newspaper articles I posted. Don't rely on me to give you the facts. Read them for yourself.

And dont tell me that Reuters, Associated Press and the New York Times are not reliable sources

Caine

LOL.... More proof that you can't debate this issue like an adult and have to resort to accusations of racism.

Just like you called me racist in an earlier post.

If you can't seem to debate this issue without realizing that people can disagree that any racism occurred here and still not be racist theirselves than you need to go somewhere else, that NAACP mentality doesn't work with me.
If you want to call me a racist because I don't agree that something is racist just because the NAACP says it is, too bad.

When you see some real racism, let me know.

__________________
This same attitude is going to be the excuse used when Obama loses. Mark my words.

Citizen

You refuse to acknowledge facts. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. So tell me, Why are you so dead set on believing a blogger instead of the facts concerning Jena 6 if it is not because of your racist attitude towards blacks?

roguenuke

They overturned the conviction because the law in Louisiana says that the DA could not charge Bell as an adult for those charges. That means the DA was wrong to charge Bell as an adult, however, even this doesn't prove that he is racist and that is why he charged him with what he did. It just shows that the DA is overzealous. If the DA is basing his charges on race, then there would be other cases before this that would show it. Again I ask, where is the proof?

By the way, I live in Hawaii, first of all, so the paper here is not going to go do research in Louisiana for this story when the entire US section of the local paper takes up a page unless the story is really big, and this one isn't for news. Second, I'd say that most news organizations, whether TV, newspaper, online, or whatever are not doing their own independent research for the back story on this case anyway. They are relying on research from others like Bean, Jackson, and Sharpton or ONLINE sources and going from there to cover the story from now on. Some have started to research only because of all the information coming out, including the Justice Department's statements and those from Walters, that are challenging the story that was initially reported and making them look stupid. The newspapers are not going to be any more reliable for information on this case than other forms of news. I'd say the majority of local newspapers are the least likely to get the information correct since they more than likely have the least amount of funding to travel around the country to do their own research on other cities' news when they have their own news stories to put out dealing with the local news, which is what most people would be most interested in reading about. And major newspapers are online to read, which is some of what I have been reading. Heck, even a lot of the small ones are online. You don't need to buy a paper to read a paper anymore. That's one of the good things about the internet.

We can argue all day how much research has gone into the Snope's article, but it still can't be said that these are proven facts unless they have done unbiased research themselves in Jena and found it all true. People make mistakes, especially when relying on other people to do the research for them.

Citizen

I never said that the D.A. was racist. What I said was that the charges were unfair and excessive. The circuit court agrees. That is what the whole protest was about in the first place.

You have a computer. You can read Reuters and AP online. That is the purpose of Reuters and AP. Because local papers cannot send someone to a state to investigate stories.n You should not say that news organizations are relying on hearsay. That is foolish. They get the facts from the sources. They have reviewed court papers and interviewed the D.A. and others. Sharpton and others did not come on the scene until much later. They are reactionaries not fact finders. I rely on the news organizations, not Bloggers for facts.

Of course you won't agree with Snopes because it has defused your myths about Jena. You saw thier sources. I cant believe that you will not acknowledge those sources. I will not agrue with you any more. If you want to depend on unfounded blogs and opinions for your information, then continue to remain in the dark.

roguenuke

Oh, by the way, that comment about the noose incident happening shortly before the "fight" (which is still being used by many of the news sources to describe the attack on Barker), was from AP news. News can be biased and is not always the most reliable source. They aren't omnipotent, they don't know everything. Research should involve as many sources as you can find and then the individual reading it should judge which sources should be considered most reliable. I have researched many sites on this case, and I have found multiple articles and blogs on both sides to be too biased to believe. There are plenty of people out there who are racist, but there are way more people that do not believe the cries of racism simply because it doesn't fit with all the information that is given and keeps coming out. People are not being racist because they don't believe everything they read, even if it's from a news source.

If what Snopes is reporting about the Fair Barn incident is true, then how come Bailey or his family didn't say something before when Sloan was charged? For that matter, how come none of the cops that came out to the incident noticed that Bailey was bleeding if he was hit in the head with multiple beer bottles? I can't believe the cops wouldn't do something to help someone if they were bleeding from the head. If their version is true, then Bailey had a legitimate case to press more charges. Why did it only come out after Bailey got in trouble? This sounds really fishy to me and that is why I choose to consider the version that is supported by police, the DA, and other "racist" sites, as you Citizen would call them, as more reliable.

roguenuke

Actually, the purpose of the protest was that the charges were unfair and excessive due to race. THAT says that the DA must be racist. The battery and conspiracy charges are fair. The law in LA says that Bell can't be tried as an adult for these but that doesn't mean that he couldn't be tried as an adult in other states for these charges. The circuit court does not necessarily agree that the charges are unfair and excessive. They overturned the verdict because Louisiana law does not allow a minor to be tried as an adult for the current charges. They did not say the charges were unfair and excessive.