• 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

I think Agent J does. He was the one posting evidence he thinks shows there was foul play and posted the article by the LA Times that brings up lynching. I think Danarhea thinks it was since he tried to link it to Emit Till. And I think iliveonramen believes that it was because he was arguing that hanging a person is uncommon except in a "very specific circumstance" (read: lynching)

as usual your post thinks wrong about me
I DO think this is shady
I DO think theres evidence that suggest foul play
I DO think there is enough to warrant a deeper outside investigation

but i clearly said i dont know what happened and i wasnt there
my conversations about "lynchings" were to two posters that didn't know what they were. 1 falsely claimed that lynching had to involve race, thats wrong. The other falsely claimed that a lynching had to be based on a LEGAL crime, that was also wrong.

BUT due to the lengthy time it took for me, the dictionary and other posters to get them to understand this fact so I could understand how you made your mistake, i could have easily made it myself.
 
OK, same goes for you and everyone else who have somehow made this a 12 page thread.....;)

I'm not guessing at what happened, I am simply calling out those who think they know more than they actually do.
 
as usual your post thinks wrong about me
I DO think this is shady
I DO think theres evidence that suggest foul play
I DO think there is enough to warrant a deeper outside investigation

but i clearly said i dont know what happened and i wasnt there
my conversations about "lynchings" were to two posters that didn't know what they were. 1 falsely claimed that lynching had to involve race, thats wrong. The other falsely claimed that a lynching had to be based on a LEGAL crime, that was also wrong.

BUT due to the lengthy time it took for me, the dictionary and other posters to get them to understand this fact so I could understand how you made your mistake, i could have easily made it myself.

Yeah, and you just call foul play and link to an arcticle suggesting it was a lynching ... but you take no real stand on the matter. Pull the other one. :roll:
 
The shoe thing is definitely odd. But why is she calling it a lynching? It could be that he was killed by a rival for his girlfriend, or someone from another football team, or his sister. The use of "lynching" implies that white men/man killed him because he was black. That may or may not be true but you need more evidence than he was cheerful when he left and the shoes weren't him to assume it was a lynching as we understand lynching.

They should reopen the case. That I agree with. But reopen it with an open mind, not because she and the NAACP say it was a lynching.

I hope they get the answers so the family can try to recover some of their lives that had to have been wrecked by the tragedy.

Just another fine example of :

BLACK PRIVILEGE
 
Immediately, Lacy believed her son's death was the result of some foul play.

"He didn't do this to himself," Lacy says.

She believes Lennon was lynched.


From the OP. Now how does that sync with "His mother doesn't even say a crime was probable"?

Also from the OP, and quoted directly in that post:

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,"

But if you want to assert the mother believes a crime was probable - fine. Don't care enough to debate fine points of her position.
 
I'm not guessing at what happened, I am simply calling out those who think they know more than they actually do.

Okee dokee. But this place would die quickly if we were limited to talking about things we're fully informed about... :roll:
 
Also from the OP, and quoted directly in that post:

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,"

But if you want to assert the mother believes a crime was probable - fine. Don't care enough to debate fine points of her position.

So then CNN lied when it said she believes her son was "lynched". And she didn't really mean it when she said "He didn't do this to himself". And CNN lied when they said "Immediately, Lacy believed her son's death was the result of some foul play".

Okay. No wonder this thread is a bust. Nobody can even keep the story straight.
 
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.

Then they did not lynch him.

You can't go to court over a personal offence that isn't considered a crime in the eyes of the law.

That is the basis behind a lynching, that a person is charged/accused of a legal crime, but is not given a trial to prove that he is innocent, rather, he is simply executed right away.

The situation your referring to is just plain old murder.
 
Okee dokee. But this place would die quickly if we were limited to talking about things we're fully informed about... :roll:

A lot cleaner, anyway.
 
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

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.
That's an interesting rule and all, but I don't see any compelling reason why positing stupidity is any better than positing malice, particularly given American's history of police covering up the hanging of Black men by White people. I'm going to stick with positing malice.
 
How many lynchings of men have we seen in the south this year?

You're hilarious - I guess you're assuming when the poster said "would hardly be the first" that he implied "this year."

I look forward to all the threads on suicide/homicide going forward. I think.

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.
 
Is this where we ignore the fact that there's a 90% chance that the murderer--if it's actually a murser--is black?

I don't imagine it matters to this mother if her son's killer was black, white or some other color.
 
I don't imagine it matters to this mother if her son's killer was black, white or some other color.

Exactly, so why bring the KKK into the discussion as evidence of...something?
 
Then they did not lynch him.

You can't go to court over a personal offence that isn't considered a crime in the eyes of the law.

That is the basis behind a lynching, that a person is charged/accused of a legal crime, but is not given a trial to prove that he is innocent, rather, he is simply executed right away.

The situation your referring to is just plain old murder.

You're right, but we can't pass up the opportunity to put some miles on the ol' race hustler wagon.
 
Yeah, and you just call foul play and link to an arcticle suggesting it was a lynching ... but you take no real stand on the matter. Pull the other one. :roll:

making stuff up and using failed strawmen wont change the fact your assumption was wrong lol
 
Then they did not lynch him.

You can't go to court over a personal offence that isn't considered a crime in the eyes of the law.

That is the basis behind a lynching, that a person is charged/accused of a legal crime, but is not given a trial to prove that he is innocent, rather, he is simply executed right away.

The situation your referring to is just plain old murder.

repeating this lie will never make it true, its been proven wrong by 10 dictionaries, 20+ posts and multiple posters
a LEGAL crime is not needed for a lynching
facts win again
 
Which has only been supplied by the family.

If there were shoes that were 2 sizes too small and they disappeared, and the information didn't come LE, where did the family get that information?
 
making stuff up and using failed strawmen wont change the fact your assumption was wrong lol

So you don't think it was a lynching?
 
So you don't think it was a lynching?

as I said many times in the thread and once directly to you, I dont know :shrug:
Glad I could help clear up your mistake, you're welcome.
 
Yes. the lynching of black men with white girlfriends seems to be a daily occurrence in the south.

Back to sanity here...they should investigate further as they should any suicide where the family insists it can't be suicide or because there is suspicious evidence that needs further scrutiny, as there seems to be here. Those situations are far more common than black men getting lynched because they date white women. There is a zero racism element in this death right now, much as the NAACP wants there to be, and to the chagrin of the people use worn out lines like "if this was a white man, everyone in the neighborhood would be a suspect".

I expect to see a lot of breaking news threads going forward about families insisting the death of their loved ones wasn't suicide as the coroner ruled, but was in fact murder.

You never fail to disappoint with your anti-black, 'oh we poor white victims' bull****. Way to go.
 
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.

So you decline to answer the question. Got it.
 
Is this where we ignore the fact that there's a 90% chance that the murderer--if it's actually a murser--is black?

Spoken like a true 'black' man.:lamo
 
repeating this lie will never make it true, its been proven wrong by 10 dictionaries, 20+ posts and multiple posters
a LEGAL crime is not needed for a lynching
facts win again

If I was you, I'd give up. You're dealing with a guy who's 18 years old and thinks he knows everything there is to know about everything. You cleaned his clock in that discussion. He'll be on to some new cause next.
 
repeating this lie will never make it true, its been proven wrong by 10 dictionaries, 20+ posts and multiple posters
a LEGAL crime is not needed for a lynching
facts win again

"multiple posters"

argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

the dictionary definition agreed with me as it stated that someone is executed without "LEGAL trial" and the only time someone goes to legal trial in regards to having committed a crime is when they commit a legal crime not any other crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom