Black activists like to use terms like "genocide" or "holocaust" whenever a black person breaks a shoelace or burns a piece of toast. Why? Because Jews were actually victims of those things, yet recovered and went back to being prosperous people without whining and finger-pointing every ten seconds. Many blacks do not like Jews for the simple fact that the Jews had the ability to do this. Instead of moving on themselves, black Americans look for any reason, any excuse, that will allow them to perpetuate this blame game.

Peer pressure in the black community to not "act white" (become educated and successful) has had an adverse affect on black Americans far more than racism, whether real or imaginary. This Jena incident to them is their latest opportunity to pick up the metaphoric football of victimhood and run with it as fast as they can. They won't get far. Even liberal columnists like Ruben Navarrette have taken to exposing them for what they are in this farce. 

I know this will be hard to believe as I have always been quick to anger and have fought all my life (sometimes at the drop of a hat it seems now) but I think both sides are at fault and I think Jessie and Al are just fanning the flames of racial animus for their own ends.

I thought the anglo boy had a concussion and even though he went to a function that night, he was not 100%.

And I'm not sure about the shotgun incident, if it happened just like you describe. I'd like to see a link.

The hate mongers on either side (black panthers like were present in the Duke case or skinheads, etc. on the other)  of this issue are the ones who I find despicable.

PPS: What were the crimes the white students were charged with? Oh yea, nothing.

The question, as presented, mattloch, was not "Is this much ado about nothing?" it was "Is this too much ado about something?" What do you think the white students should have been charged with? 

The white kid was beaten pretty badly, mattloch.  I saw pictures of him on CNN.  His right eye was swollen shut, there were bruises all over his face, and there was blood coming out of one of his ears, which could indicate he had internal head injuries or at least a torn ear drum.  Why he went to a ring ceremony (whatever that is) that night is beyond me.  I would have been staying at home, heavily sedated.  Maybe the ceremony was something really important to him?  Maybe he thought that by going he would appear to be macho and *not let those blacks have the satisfaction that they beat me up?*  Or maybe he thought that having people see him in that condition would inflame his white buddies to retaliate?  Who knows, but yes, I'd say he got the s*** stomped out of him.

The next night, outside a convenience store, Bailey and two friends ran into one of the white party guests. Fearing retaliation, he brandished a shotgun. Bailey wrestled the gun away from him and was then arrested and charged with stealing it.

I hadn't seen this however. Seems a fair and objective rendition.

I remeber a judge telling me and a guy I was being sued by for medical bills:

"I think you both acted reprehensibly, so I am going to make you pay half the medical bills Mr. Esquela"

At the time I hated that judge, but she was probably right in retrospect.

You ever had a concussion mattloch? I have. You may feel fine for awhile (you can even finish the game or match) but you may not remember any of it the next day. They are wierd.

The danger is cumulative trauma. If it never happens again it may be no big deal., but

mattloch - the second story you link to has errors in it.  I didn't even bother reading much of the third story after it said the Jena 6 should be freed.  I'm sorry, but ANYONE who thinks that those boys should be freed and not charged with a crime is in la la land.

.

It doesn't help when there are so many versions out there about what really happened.  Just as an example, Navarrette is wrong in his column when he says "the teens were tried as adults and charged with attempted murder."  Only ONE teen has been tried, Mychael Bell, and the charges on all of them were reduced, including on Bell, before trial.

I just read the first. It seemed fairly objective but then how would I know?

If the other ones are all different then that doesn't bode well for objectivity does it?

There's always more than meets the eye in these things so the operative thing to do is for both sides to do the right thing henceforth.

And all I am saying in that regard is that the race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson are just there to do the opposite. They are there to throw gasoline on the fire. Like the scorpion, its what they do.

"Ah, so you weren't questioning that it happened, just the circumstances under which it occurred. Gotcha."

Was that in reference to my last comment, if so: Not quite, mattloch, I was questioning whether or not the reaction was an over-reaction or a reaction that wasn't appropriately tempered by a careful examination of the facts.  I still haven't come to a conclusion, so feel free to help me decide. 

I posted this on another thread on this same subject last week.  I've made some minor changes to it here:

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

When I first heard about the Jena 6 some months ago, I thought it sounded like a clear case of racism and injustice.  I've had an opportunity to think about it some, especially in light of last Thursday's protest rally, and I've talked to a few people who've helped me see another perspective on the whole thing.

Some thoughts:

   -  It is grossly unfair to label all of Jena, LA as a racist town.  I tried to imagine what it would feel like if I lived there, and suddenly my neighbors and I got all this national attention, being called names as if everyone in the town was one person.  Few outside of my town know me, yet they feel qualified to judge me, even though I may have had absolutely nothing to do with the incidents that caused my community to get instant notoriety?  This would bother me greatly.

   -  W/R/T the nooses:  This was unquestionably a despicable act.  But apparently there was no law that was broken.  Can this be cynically categorized as a malicious and warped example of freedom of speech then?  If there technically was no law broken, then the white boys who hung the nooses cannot be charged with any crime.  Despite the outrage in the black community, criminal charges can't be fabricated against the white perpetrators just to make the blacks feel better.  But wouldn't it be considered a hate crime, I asked someone very knowledgeable in the law.  Hateful as the act was, his answer was no, at least not in California. Though he is not specifically familiar with Louisiana law, he said most states' laws are the same for hate crimes.  In California, for a hate crime to be charged, first a crime has to be committed AND hate has to be the motivation for the crime that is committed.  For example: a house is vandalized by spray painting swastikas on it by someone who hates Jews; or a gay kid gets the snot beaten out of him by a group of kids who don't like homosexuals.

     Thus, it would appear that the only entity with any authority to punish the white boys would be the school, which tried to, but those efforts were reduced to a mere hand slap by the school board.  I'm not sure total expulsion would have been appropriate, but had they not reduced the white boys' punishment to next to nothing, the events may not have escalated into what they did. I would really like to know what the school board's reasons were for minimizing the white boys' punishment.

   -  When I first read about Justin Barker's beating, and that he'd been able to attend a school function later that evening, I thought his injuries must not have been that severe.  I watched a program on CNN Thursday night, and they showed pictures of Justin after he'd been beaten.  It was MUCH worse than I had imagined.  His right eye was swollen shut, his whole face was bruised, and blood was coming out of his ear (which would indicate possibly some inner head injury).  I don't know what was so important to attend at school that night, but if it had been me, I'd have been at home heavily sedated.  I have heard Justin Barker's attack referred to as a schoolyard fight.  I can't help but wonder if six white boys had beaten up a black boy, would it have been described as a mob attack instead?

   -  As for the "trumped up" charges of second degree attempted murder:  Again, I asked my legal expert for some enlightenment.  He could not comment on the specific charges themselves since Louisiana law may differ from California law, but he could give me some insight into what the process and strategy for filing the charges might be like.  In California, prosecutors have 72 hours in which to charge a person with a crime once they are arrested, or the person must be released.  If a defendant is incarcerated on a Friday, by the time the work week rolls around sometimes a prosecutor has less than one hour to read a file and determine if the person in jail should be charged.  Almost never has a case been totally investigated before charges are filed, but obviously enough information must have been gathered before anyone can be formally charged.  A reason for filing potentially stronger charges, initially, would be to prevent a defendant from pleading out to lower charges and then later finding out that the crime was more severe than it was originally believed to be.  Better to drop or reduce charges later after getting more investigation completed, than to let a defendant off with less punishment than they deserved.  This might have been the Jena DA's tactic.  He did, after all, eventually lower the charges against the black boys.  (Or it might not have.  His comment about ruining the kids' lives with a stroke of his pen, or something similar to that, is certainly damning.)

  -  W/R/T Mychael Bell not having a jury of his peers to hear his case:  I've often times wondered how we are always suppose to get a jury of one's peers?  We should try, but is it always possible?  A news story I read over the weekend said that there were potential black jurors called to duty the week of Bell's trial.  None of them showed up to do their civic duty.  In a town where the black population is so small to begin with, what constitutes a jury of his peers?  An all black jury?  How would they get that when no blacks show up to serve?  A jury with the same ratio of blacks on it as the population of the town in general?  The jury would still be predominantly white.  What's the legal system to do?

   -  I am at a loss as to why anyone thinks the "Jena 6" should be freed.  They ganged up and beat the s*** out of another student.  One could argue that the beating was based on hatred, but the DA is not charging them with any hate crime.  If the color of the individuals involved was reversed, I believe we'd be hearing a different cry from the black community, and from the likes of Revs. Sharpton and Jackson.

Two things are certain:

   1)  Racism DOES still exist, and not just in the South.  Blatant racism may not be as bad as it used to be, but hate groups and insidious subtle racism exist in ALL parts of the country.  

   2)  The Jena DA is in a very difficult position.  In his efforts to follow the law, he will be criticized no matter what he does. 

"...but I do think the hanging of the nooses should constitute a hate crime..."

I tend to agree with you, bakonative.  Maybe the laws should be changed.  Then again, who decides where the cutoff point is in freedom of speech?