Megan McArdle (September 21, 2007)

Megan,
Do you have any idea what a SLOGAN, or a RALLYING CRY is? Of course it is not meant to be taken literally.

But I really do question the mentality of someone, who, when commenting on a public forum in regards to an obvious and horrendous injustice, decided to descend into pedantry rather than, ya know, offer any serious complaints about the injustice.

Your wrote:
"However, given that the white people involved have already had their cases adjudicated, and been given excessively light punishments, I'm not sure how to administer that justice. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that it should not involve releasing kids who perpetrated a six-on-one assault."

So, given that this is obviously a case wrapped up in the issue of race IN THE DEEP SOUTH, you think the REAL injustice is that six black kids who committed a crime may not get what they deserve, but when it comes to the white kids, you are insouciant: "I'm not sure how to administer that justice". Please.

You also wrote: "I'm not sure which would horrify me more as a parent: having given birth to a kid who ganged up on a loudmouth and kicked him in the head; or having raised a kid who thought that lynching threats made a witty and appropriate practical joke."

Are you even aware of what you are doing? The black kids are "gang[ing] up on a loudmouth and kick[ing] him in the head" while the white kids thought that making "lynching threats [were] a witty and appropriate practical joke". No mention of the fact that the white kids ASSAULTED THE BLACK KIDS WITH A SHOTGUN!

Your post is a disgrace.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 1:26 PM

Go to jail - I don't think so.

First, the kid who was beaten was taunting the students. If you taunt someone and you get your ass kicked - it's your own fault.

I'm gay, and had some trouble in High School because of it. Taunting, being called a faggot, etc. But, being 6'2" by the time I was 14, one vicious beating and the issue of me being gay was never ever an issue again.

Keep in mind this was my only option, as the administration and teachers will never stand up for a kid being bullied. Although, in my case a teacher saw what I did and just turned arround. I swear it's like Lord of the Flies in there....

Posted by Jmo | September 21, 2007 1:32 PM

Megan,
"Six guys assaulted one, and after he was lying on the ground unconscious, kicked him repeatedly in the head."

Where is your evidence for this? Aren't you a journalist? I cannot find anything to corroborate this.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 1:33 PM

If someone wants to kick racist crackers in the head, i'm all for it.

But you should only wear black to make you a## look less fat. (Not you personally.)

Posted by Jena Bush | September 21, 2007 1:40 PM

The weirdest thing about this story is the black kids "asking permission" to sit beneath the white person's tree. What century are these people living in?

Posted by Jasonc | September 21, 2007 1:52 PM

Do you have any idea what a SLOGAN, or a RALLYING CRY is? Of course it is not meant to be taken literally.
Is that true for mission accomplished on the carrier with Bush?

No mention of the fact that the white kids ASSAULTED THE BLACK KIDS WITH A SHOTGUN!
Of course gun rights and self defense are not excuses to progressives.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1190307980.shtml
The consensus story on the shotgun seems to be that a group of black guys were trash talking and baiting a single white guy about a fight that happened earlier at a party. White guy gets scared, runs to his truck, and grabs his shotgun. One of the black guys rushes him, takes the shotgun away, and then goes home with it and keeps it.

That's theft and battery.

I guess that the assault on the white male should be overlooked to protect the narrative. The charges should reduced but the thugs committed a crime and not freed.

Rickm, to borrow from one of Megan's critics, you are weapons-grade stupid.

Posted by Paul L. | September 21, 2007 1:57 PM

*ahem*

Some interesting tidbits about the controversy. I'd post links so you could see that I'm not amking any of this up, but when you post links around here your comment goes into the black hole of Calcutta.

So:

The school superindendent in charge of the area overruled the Jena high school principal's expulsion over the original noose-hanging, calling it a case of adolescent pranks.

The local DA told protesting students that if they didn't stop making a fuss over an"...innocent prank I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.”

The white student who threatened with the shotgun was not charged with anything. The black students who got the shotgun away from him were arrested and charged with aggravated assault and theft.

The white student who was beat up was hospitalized, treated and released, after which he went to a social event in the evening. even so, his assailants were initially charged with attempted second-degree murder. At the trial of one of the defendants, the prosecutor was allowed to argue that his (the defendant's) sneakers were deadly weapons. An all-white jury heard from 17 white witnesses (the defendant's parents were barred from attending the trial) and took 3 hours to convict on all charges, leaving a high school kid with a possible 22 years incarcerated.

Some wit. Some practical joke.

Posted by jonathan | September 21, 2007 1:57 PM

I've been following this case for some time (and blogging some about it), and I think that Megan has a very good point.

The comments by Rickm and Jmo exemplify what's wrong with a great deal of the sanctimonious posturing that the case has brought out.

Now, I realize that "Give the Jena 6 a Reduced Sentence" isn't quite as good a slogan as "Free the Jena 6," but "Free the Jena 6" suggests that you think they should be, well, freed. Since it's clear that the perpetrators of this attack engaged in criminal conduct, attempts to make them seem like innocent victims tend to backfire with those not ideologically presupposed to respond immediately to claims of victimization.

And, by the way, all of the media reports that I have seen suggest that Justin Barker -- the victim of this attack -- was set up by a group of attackers and beaten after he was already unconscious. Attacking one person in a group is cowardly. Kicking somebody when he's down is cowardly. The people who did this are cowards and thugs.

Jmo's response is worse in its own way. For one thing, heaccepts uncritically factual claims made by the pro Jena 6 activists: that Barker was taunting these people. They say he was taunting them. He denies it. I don't claim to know who is telling the truth, but you should at least acknowledge that the facts are in dispute.

And, I am sorry, but even if he was taunting them, that does not justify a six-on-one beat-down. Not morally, and certainly not legally. I'm sorry you were harassed in school, but violent self-help isn't accepted in our society. Plus, did you gather five of your mates and stomp on one guy? I mean, if it was one-on-one, I could call it manly combat between equals. But it wasn't.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | September 21, 2007 1:58 PM

Per Paul L., I guess Megan is allowing name calling in her comments.

I still would like some evidence that "Six guys assaulted one, and after he was lying on the ground unconscious, kicked him repeatedly in the head."

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 2:02 PM

I appreciate the objective tone in Megan's post. Which laws were broken, who broke them, and the color-blind application of justice are what's important. All else is political grandstanding. I just heard a radio report that suggested that Obama's statement on the matter indicated he was acting "too white" on the issue. Obama's stock probably just went up with most Americans.

Posted by Michael W | September 21, 2007 2:04 PM

Michael W,
I would advise you not to be swayed by the objective 'tone' of Megan's post--she did fabricate some claims.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 2:06 PM

You know, I'd actually weigh in here, and attempt to clear up some of your utter baloney-- it absolutely was not a six on one fight, if you'd care to have a little journalistic integrity and actually investigate that charge; there was a similar incident where numerous white students assaulted one black student, and only one of them was charged, with a misdemeanor; a man pulled a shotgun on three black kids and not a single charge was filed; a reciprocal vision of justice would ensure that, since these crimes resulted in no jail time whatsoever for white students, no jail time would be sentenced for the Jena 6.

But, really, what's the point? You've posted this for one reason and one reason only-- you want the "iconoclast" cred that comes with entitling a post "Jail the Jena 6." That's the point of this, being controversial and daring and contrarian. And, ooh, yes. We're all so impressed! You don't care who's feathers you ruffle! Yes. Bask in the glow of being so incredibly out of tune with the liberal plebes.

Of course, if you really felt that the law required that people be jailed for these crimes, the thing to advocate wouldn't be to "Jail the Jena 6"-- who have already been received incredibly inflated charges-- but to prosecute the white students who viciously assaulted blacks and received no punishment. I mean if you want to come down on the side of punishing everyone who committed a crime, surely, you would press the issue for the people who walked away with no real punishment whatsoever. But then, that doesn't get you approving links from Instapundit. Does it?

It is utterly baffling that you could assess this situation and say that it is the black students who have been unduly coddled by the system. That is simply nonsensical.

And, by the way, they've already been jailed. If you want to sentence them to a long prison term, say so.

Posted by Freddie | September 21, 2007 2:10 PM

One of the black guys rushes him, takes the shotgun away, and then goes home with it and keeps it.

It's my understanding that he didn't take it home, he took it directly to the police and turned it over to them. Put's a different spin on the act, doesn't it?

Posted by Justin JJ | September 21, 2007 2:11 PM

Rickm,

CNN's Story

"Four days after the arson, several students jumped a white classmate, Justin Barker, knocking him unconscious before stomping and kicking him."

That proof?

What else did McMegan fabricate?

Posted by Skullberg | September 21, 2007 2:15 PM

I appreciate the objective tone in Megan's post. Which laws were broken, who broke them, and the color-blind application of justice are what's important.

So why are you not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who viciously beat a black student and were not arrested?

I guess that the assault on the white male should be overlooked to protect the narrative. The charges should reduced but the thugs committed a crime and not freed.

So why are you not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who viciously beat a black student and were not arrested?

Since it's clear that the perpetrators of this attack engaged in criminal conduct, attempts to make them seem like innocent victims tend to backfire with those not ideologically presupposed to respond immediately to claims of victimization.

So why are you not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who viciously beat a black student and were not arrested?

Plus, did you gather five of your mates and stomp on one guy? I mean, if it was one-on-one, I could call it manly combat between equals. But it wasn't.

So why are you not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who viciously beat a black student and were not arrested?

Posted by Freddie | September 21, 2007 2:16 PM

Skullberg,
Um, that doesn't really corroborate Megan's claim that the black students "kicked him repeatedly in the head". That seems to be fabricated by Megan.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 2:17 PM

Rick - the point is that the political grandstanding and rhetorical diarrhea are preventing getting out the facts.

Posted by Michael W | September 21, 2007 2:22 PM

Michael W,
Right, now why this is an argument FOR Megan's position, I have no idea.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 2:25 PM

I just wanted to second Freddie's post, at least the parts where he's not directly insulting Megan. The issue here is _equal justice._ If you think the six guys who fought with Barker deserve jail time you really should be agitating to send the other kids who fought to jail too. Those kids were not prosecuted. Because they were white. If the white kids get off free, so do the black kids. That's justice. It would be nice to say "justice is the application of the law equally" but it seems terribly obvious that the law is not a blind instrument in rural Louisiana, and if the choice is preferential deference to "the law" or "fend for yourselves equally" justice demands the latter, not the former.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | September 21, 2007 2:27 PM

My understanding of the facts of the case is that the guys who beat up the black kid several days before were a) not students and b) in fact brought before a court and given a ridiculously light sentence. That was the point: not that injustice hasn't been done, but that given that the cases have already been tried and jeopardy attached, I'm not sure how you balance the scales.

Also, waving a shotgun at someone who is threatening to hit you is arguably not actually a crime, but rather self defense, no matter how much of a foul racist you are.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 21, 2007 2:28 PM

Skullberg:

From the CNN story you linked to:

Advocates for the Jena 6 aren't saying the boys should be let off if they indeed pummeled Justin Barker. Rather, they're saying the charges should match the crime -- and that the juvenile court should handle the teens' cases.

That's been my sense of this all along, so I guess you could say McArdle fabricated a straw man. Most Jena 6 supporters admit these kids deserve some sort of punishment, but the outcry is that the punishment is so draconian and that the white kids got off scot free.

Posted by Mike T | September 21, 2007 2:30 PM

R - short of having video replay of everything I'm unable to have any 'position' other than a desire to have a dispassionate recitation of facts unladen with a "position". Well, maybe one: I wouldn't recommend Jena-area real estate to anyone.

Posted by Michael W | September 21, 2007 2:31 PM

I fail to see why "free the jena six" or "give the jena six life sentences" are the only options here, just like how "punish the white kids for being shitheads" and "punish the black kids for a 6 on 1 beatdown" seem to be mutually exclusive.

Facts of the case: some teenagers jumped abother teenager and beat the hell out of him. They should face criminal justice for this. Should they be sentenced to life for attempted murder? No. Should their sentencing take into account the racist climate and the disproportionately light sentences on the white kids? Absolutely. Should they get off scott free? Nope

Posted by Jack | September 21, 2007 2:33 PM

So why are you not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who viciously beat a black student and were not arrested?

When there's a protest to "Jail the Jena White Kids", then it'll be topical. Right now we're talking about "Free the Jena 6", the slogan that a number of people marched for yesterday.

Posted by Kevin | September 21, 2007 2:35 PM

Great! Megan chimed in!

Now could you either corroborate your assetion that the black students kicked the white student "repeatedly in the head", or retract it.

Posted by Rickm | September 21, 2007 2:35 PM

Megan

This seems a far cry from "waving a shotgun at someone who is threatening to hit you".

There also was a fight at a convenience store in a predominantly black part of Jena. In the parking lot, a white high school student who spotted young black students went and got a shotgun out of his car. Three black students wrestled it away from him.

Maybe you just have a different definition of self-defense than I do.

Posted by Mike T | September 21, 2007 2:36 PM

I'm not sure which would horrify me more as a parent: having given birth to a kid who ganged up on a loudmouth and kicked him in the head; or having raised a kid who thought that lynching threats made a witty and appropriate practical joke.

Look.

I think McMegan and her Mini-Mes here are a classic example of people who don't have racial animus, but have an incredibly naive view of just how deeply disadvantaged black people are in parts of our country. This quote is exactly the problem. Megan is saying that, on the one hand, black kids beat up a white kid; on the other, some white kids played a mean prank.

That is not even close to an accurate representation of the events.

This is a question of selective enforcement and unequal levels of punishment. For two very similar crimes, black students were charged with felonies that could jail them for the majority of their lives. White students went uncharged save for a single student who received only a token misdemeanor which could result in no jail time. That is the issue at hand.

Now we place this in it's appropriate context. At this high school, there is a whites only tree, established through long tradition. Some black students wanted to challenge that tradition. (And if you want to suggest they shouldn't have, yes, you are a racist.)

In response, white students hung nooses from the tree. Only a privileged white person such as Megan could possibly imagine that that is simply a harmless prank, or that it does not imply a threat. So we've got an incredibly elevated racial tension at this high school.

In this atmosphere we have two incidents (setting aside someone pulling a shotgun on unarmed blacks, a felony for which the person doing the menacing was not charged.) Each involved a group of students of one race attacking a student of another race. Of the white students who attacked a black student, a single white student was charged with a misdemeanor which cannot result in a prison sentence. In the black on white assault, seven students were charged, all with felonies that carry possible convictions of, at a minimum, decades of jail time.

And, at this, Megan and her supporters say, the black kids are getting unfair support from the media.

What world are you living in? By what possible rubric is it the black students who have been privileged? I'm sympathetic to the notion that everyone who commits a crime should be charged. But that means charging the white students with equivalent charges, not further increasing the black student's punishment. Ideally, the white students would be charged, and everyone would receive sentences that taught them a lesson, rather than ruined their lives. But no one seems to be able to actually prosecute these white kids. So in the interest of some basic notions of justice, the black students receive reduced sentences. And you know what? I'll take it. If the white students get off with no punishment, surely the black students should receive the same.

I'm sorry. But saying that it's the black students who are the recipients of unfair support here is just utterly, totally wrong. There's just no question.

Posted by Freddie | September 21, 2007 2:37 PM

Rickm,

This person doubts the story, but the local news clearly says Megan's statement was write.
Here

That enough....

Posted by Skullberg | September 21, 2007 2:39 PM

If you think the six guys who fought with Barker deserve jail time you really should be agitating to send the other kids who fought to jail too. Those kids were not prosecuted. Because they were white. If the white kids get off free, so do the black kids. That's justice.

Actually, no. Justice is when a crime is committed, and the law and its consequences are then judicially applied to the perpetrators.

Skewing the law in a second case because it was skewed in a first case does not execute justice; it just gives injustice a bigger pile of carrion slag on which to feed.

There's no easy answer to what is taking place in this situation, and it would be well for many of the commenters here to admit as much, and then back off the sloganeering. This is a serious problem; it demands serious thought on why this situation exists and what can actually be done about it in the real world, not a bunch of race-baiting sneers and sloganeering.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 21, 2007 2:41 PM

Rickm said:

Skullberg,
Um, that doesn't really corroborate Megan's claim that the black students "kicked him repeatedly in the head". That seems to be fabricated by Megan.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70916045

From a local paper:

Investigators from the LaSalle Parish Sheriff's Office have gathered statements from more than 40 people -- a number of them students -- who told investigators they saw everything that happened. Many of these statements were included in court documents.

"When I heard a black boy say something to Justin, I turned my head and I saw somebody hit Justin," one student wrote in a statement. "He fell in between the gym door and the concrete barricade. I saw Robert Bailey kneel down and punch Justin in the head. ... Then Carwin Jones kicked him in the head. ... Theo Shaw tried to kick him so I pushed Theo Shaw down. I also saw Mychal Bell standing over him."

Phrases like "stomped him badly," "stepped on his face," "knocked out cold on the ground," and "slammed his head on the concrete beam" were used by the students in their statements.

Looks like they have statements from other students alleging that he was kicked and struck in the head.

Posted by Kevin | September 21, 2007 2:42 PM

Hey Freddie, I gather that you want to know why I am not advocating the arrest and prosecution of the white students who "viciously beat a black student and were not arrested."

You seem to be following the "Free the Jena 6" playbook pretty well: when the facts don't favor your argument, just make up facts that do.

I assume you are referring to the attack on Robert Bailey (one of the Jena 6) by Justin Sloan, when Barker tried to crash an invitation-only party and was denied entry. A couple of things. First, there's no indication that Bailey was "viciously beaten," much less that he was set upon by a group. His attacker, Justin Sloan, was not a student. And, while Bailey claims Sloan hit him with a beer bottle, there is no corroborating evidence and no indication he sought medical treatment.

Other than that, the two cases are identical.

If you can point to me an example of a group of whites kicking a black kid while he is knocked out, I promise you I will support prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. And I will condemn the attackers as cowardly thugs, the same way I condemn the Jena 6.

As for Rickm, google "Jena 6 facts." Press reports can be wrong, but every report I've seen says that Barker a) lost consciousness, and b) was indeed kicked after that occurred. I don't think anybody knows how many times he was kicked, and you can perhaps accuse Megan of rhetorical overkill. But she didn't fabricate the fact that the victim in this case was kicked while he was knocked out.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | September 21, 2007 2:42 PM

Yes, he was beaten so viciously he later attended a party and consumed alcohol, by his own admission.

Skewing the law in a second case because it was skewed in a first case does not execute justice; it just gives injustice a bigger pile of carrion slag on which to feed.

And the way to ensure justice is to charge one group of black students with incredibly elevated and unfair charges. (If you think it is typical for seven people in LA to be charged with attempted murder in an attack that was not life threatening and caused no permanent injury, you're just wrong.)

Also, waving a shotgun at someone who is threatening to hit you is arguably not actually a crime, but rather self defense, no matter how much of a foul racist you are.

Except that you've misrepresented that situation, and expressed in a way that makes the white kid menacing black kids with a shotgun (which is a felony in LA) as sympathetic as possible.

Again, I'm sorry, but to believe that black kids in rural Louisiana are the beneficiaries of a sympathetic media and judicial system, you really don't have a clue.

Posted by Freddie | September 21, 2007 2:52 PM

Lynching threats being made by a teenager are certainly inappropriate. Both for the threat to physical violence and the historical/racist imagery it invokes.

However, there are no doubt some kids that defy their parents: religion, politics, morals, just because. Because it's bad, or whatever. I know some kids flirt with the whole racist thing when they're teenagers just because they're rebelling against "the other".

However, carrying that over into committing physical acts of violence is certainly far worse. If you don't think it's worse, as conveyed by your statement you're not sure what type of kid you'd rather have, please step up and insist we deliver an appropriate response to Iran, on the same level as if they attacked one of their neighboors based on their constant, frequent references to genocide.

Words are important, but at the end of the day they are words. And while words can certainly harm your mind and soul, physical acts of violence are the things a society should handle in a very different way from racism.

Posted by sam | September 21, 2007 2:54 PM

Mike T referenced CNN: "There also was a fight at a convenience store in a predominantly black part of Jena. In the parking lot, a white high school student who spotted young black students went and got a shotgun out of his car. Three black students wrestled it away from him.

"The white student later told police he felt threatened by the black students."

Which tells us precisely what? Was the white student merely a racist dolt who brandishes a firearm every time he sees black students? Or had he maybe been threatened by the same group a day before? Had the black students been threatend by white students the day before, and thus reacted the way they did? Perhaps some gang signs were involved, but nobody on either side was going to pipe up about that when the police showed? Etc, etc.

Which merely underlines the problem of rushing to snap judgments about the situation when the only known facts have come through a media filter. There is no general prohibition to open carry of a firearm in the United States; and in much of the deep south, few people would even bat an eyelash at the idea. If the white student brandished the shotgun at the black students, then he was definitely threatening them and they reacted appropriately. But if he was simply carrying, he was well within his rights (however imprudent it may have been to exercise that right at the time) and they engaged in assault and theft.

Since we evidently have no other context to go by, assault and theft is a reasonable interpretation of the known facts until more come to light.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 21, 2007 2:56 PM

What still gets me about the whole mess is that in Jena, a black kid's sneakers are apparently considered more deadly/dangerous than a white man's shotgun.

Excuse me, I think I need to take a shower.

Posted by jonathan | September 21, 2007 2:59 PM

Again, I'm sorry, but to believe that black kids in rural Louisiana are the beneficiaries of a sympathetic media and judicial system, you really don't have a clue.
I remember a story about some rich white males that attended a prestigious university accused of raping a poor black erotic dancer. Which side had the sympathetic media?

Posted by Paul L. | September 21, 2007 3:06 PM

Freddie, I'm not saying that they're being lauded by a sympathetic media. I'm saying that their supporters have deployed inappopriate language, which has resulted in a number of people I've talked to saying "I don't get it--they committed assault. Why would I support them?" Free the Jena 6 is obscuring the problem of disparate enforcement, rather than stirring righteous public outrage about it.

Posted by Megan McArdle | September 21, 2007 3:12 PM

Out in the real world (KY hillbilly country), where the proles don't prowl the upper east side, we had a few wanna-be krackers in our high school who wanted to run the two black students out of our school. "Pranks" were played. One involved dead possums in each black kids' locker. Surely, as the Jena prosecutor concluded, that's not a crime.

After the possum case two things happened that would have happened in this case after the nooses were hung, were it not for the obvious fact that several of the Jena town authorities/elders and, apparently, a lot of the more prosperous and popular students in Jena are racist crackers.

First, I and one of the two black kids were on the basketball team (the Runnin' Rebels, how's that for PC?). The basketball team (without black kid's knowledge or participation) challenged these KKK wannabes to a fight. We all showed at the local fight spot, and shit went down. The cops made everyone go home. No charges, just high school kids fighting. No one cared because these KKK punks were losers. Unfortunately, from my reading about Jena, it appears that it is not only the losers of this high school who are racist crakers, but the popular students as well.

Second, our assistant principal discovered who two of the possum pranksters were and on that day I remember him dragging (literally) these two guys out of the school and throwing them down the steps (literally) of the front door and telling them to never come back. There was siginificant concern that he might be fired for this act, but again, the decent/wealthier/more successful/involved parents all rallied around him to make sure the principal and the superindentent knew that the important people supported him.

If the popular kids at Jena High weren't racist crackers this would never have gotten so far out of hand. And if the superindentent had supported his principal in the first place in Jena, instead of bowing to pressure from these cracker kids' parents, we wouldn't be having all this hand-wringing about "justice".

Finally, Freddie is spot-on about Megan coming at this argument from a position of ignorance. The kind that comes from living in the insulated coccoon of privilege that proles from Manhattan walk around with.

Posted by keatssycamore | September 21, 2007 3:18 PM

Megan,

what you don't get is that with people like Freddie its that "you are either with us or with the terrorists, err racists"

This is no place for reasoned discussion or facts for that matter.

Posted by Skullberg | September 21, 2007 3:24 PM

Skewing the law in a second case because it was skewed in a first case does not execute justice; it just gives injustice a bigger pile of carrion slag on which to feed.

If the law can not be trusted to be impartial justice is divorced from the law. If that makes you uncomfortable work for a nation where the law can be trusted to be impartial.

There's no easy answer to what is taking place in this situation, and it would be well for many of the commenters here to admit as much, and then back off the sloganeering. This is a serious problem; it demands serious thought on why this situation exists and what can actually be done about it in the real world, not a bunch of race-baiting sneers and sloganeering.

I'm sure sitting around and getting pretentiously meta about how there are no easy answers and instead of trying to find some relevant to the facts at hand we should navel-gaze about how the problem is "serious" and "demands serious thought" is going to help. I mean, we'd hate to actually DO serious thought on the matter when we could crawl atop the ivory tower and plaintively instruct the world to understand the meta-import of theoretical question.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | September 21, 2007 3:25 PM

I have Justin Barker's ER discharge papers and all the medical information that was submitted into evidence. I'll be posting them on my blog next week after I've finished removing personal info like his home address, SSN, etc. I also have most of the other relevant court documents, and the witness statements, which are wildly conflicting.

There is NO WAY, based on these injuries, that he was "kicked and stomped" on the head by 6 athletes. It's simply not possible. Yes, he got the crap beat out of him, but DA Reed Walters has to exaggerate the beating beyond all recognition in order to justify what he's done.

That said, NO, the Jena 6 should not simply be freed. They committed a serious crime.

Posted by Laura Curtis | September 21, 2007 3:36 PM

Rickm is so righteously righteous! Someday he will be able to tell his grand kids "I was there at McArdle '07; it was so righteous!"

Posted by borger | September 21, 2007 3:47 PM

first let me just say if justice was going to jail for years for a high school fight thn i would be in prison fro life. It's not fair for the white kids to get away with beating the blacks kids, hanging nooses, and still nothing now let me tell we don't need you to wear black we don't need you period we onl;y people who knows what justice is. people who knows that this is clearly a black and white case and we as a nation need to stand for justice. Now yes it's wrong to jump somebody, but would the case be the same if it was a black kid who got jump this our case but thn again u r deaf, bling and plain old ignorant to realize no need to waste my time talking to you. But if you have nothing good to say thn please just shut up.

Posted by no justice no peace | September 21, 2007 4:05 PM

This quote is exactly the problem. Megan is saying that, on the one hand, black kids beat up a white kid; on the other, some white kids played a mean prank.

That is not even close to an accurate representation of the events.

How ironic, because I think this is not even close to an accurate representation of her sentence. To put it simply, she is saying she isn't sure she would be more ashamed of child who commits assault or a child who commits a hate crime and is stupid enough to think it is witty. Hence there is some uncertainty if either one is worse than the other. Or oppositely, they are about just as bad.

What still gets me about the whole mess is that in Jena, a black kid's sneakers are apparently considered more deadly/dangerous than a white man's shotgun.

If the shotgun were discharged or attempted to be discharged, you may have had a point. If the sneakers were brandished as what some taunters should expect if they continue, you may also have had a point.

Since this is my first statement on the matter my abridged opinion is that to the degree that it is possible, other events need to be relooked into to see if the other injustices can be remediated. More scrutiny needs to be applied to make sure justice is more equally applied. It would also probably be a good idea for some sort of reach-out program to bring at least the non-hot blooded people together. Otherwise, I will not come down to a definitive statement, since I have heard a lot of different and possibly conflicting information. It does sound like a number of people need to be punished, but almost certainly not for "attempted murder".

Posted by anomdebus | September 21, 2007 4:59 PM

I'm reminded of a Monday Night Football broadcast, when Howard Cosell and (pre-everything) O.J. were in the booth. O.J. was going on at great length about the details of a bar fight Mark Gastineau of the Jets had been in over the weekend.

As O.J. continues on passing off hypotheses as fact, Howard has had enough and shuts him up by announcing loudly, "Were you there Juice?"

That isn't to say the Jena case can't or shouldn't be discussed because none of us were there. We'll assume that we're all intelligent informed people of good will, and that sometimes the same set of facts lead us to different conclusions. The answer is not to dismiss one another as stupid, ill-informed or evil, but rather to enlighten and pursuade.

Posted by Jim | September 21, 2007 5:29 PM

aye wuts up u "folks" im not racist are nothing likd dat cuz i got white friends so if don't ubderstand da way im talkin to bad but newayz im 16 and i live in nc,sanford and i just wanted ta comment on did blog i don't think dis is fair at all im not on neither one side just becuz im blk im not gonna talk up for da 6 blk ppl and just becuz i hang out wit mah white gurls ain't gonna mean im take dat wht boy side my opinion to this is that they shouldn't be arrest dat long and i think that if i was dat wht boy he shouldn't have ran off his mouth if it was a group of blk folks and to me dat wht boy had {friends) well u can say so call friends cuz if they were his friend they would have jumped in and den it wouldn't have been a one to six fight plus i bet justin had his friends talking shyt den wen the blk ppl start fight his friends just watch so u can say it wasn't their fought becuz all of them was gonna fight but the wht boi stood up for his friends while he got his ass beated so if yall got anything ta say to me hit me up cuz i think dis whole thing its bullshyt but i feel sorry for the wht boyit is harsh what they did but he shouldn't have been ruining his mouth see u only run your mouth wen u have back up which he might thought he did but instead his "true friends" ditched him

Posted by Shnaika Bush | September 21, 2007 5:36 PM

But they shouldn't be freed. Six guys assaulted one, and after he was lying on the ground unconscious, kicked him repeatedly in the head. They should go to jail for this.

Darn right they should

Posted by g | September 21, 2007 5:40 PM

This is such a weird post. The post manages to agree with the general support behind the Jena 6 support, in that the African American sentences were far too excessive - but is written in the style of someone who disagrees with them! The small quibble of whether the time they've spent in jail (if no bail, presumably already 9 months) is enough or not does not seem to fit the general tenor of this post. It then spends the rest of this post knocking down a straw man version of the Jena 6.

Posted by Justin | September 21, 2007 5:58 PM

And I just noticed the top of the article.

Ummm, Atlantic, when are you going to fire this woman? Just because she has a first amendment right to say stupid things (and occasionally lie) does not mean you have the obligation to give her the forum.

Posted by Justin | September 21, 2007 5:59 PM

Thank you for acknowledging that the Jena Six are guilty and that they should not be freed. Our views on the subject our concordant.

Posted by Greg | September 21, 2007 6:47 PM

I disagree with your blog Megan,
For several reasons...one being that you apear to be very biased in saying that the Jena 6, should not be freed. There has obviously been an injustice in the treatment of the teens compared to the white teens who have simply received a slap on the wrist for acting like racists, disturbing the peace and also not to mention, ASSULTING the black teens with a SHOTGUN!!! Are these not valid for prosecutinon...I mean these boys are in high school they have no bussiness carying a weapon of that caliber!! I'm not saying the Jena 6 should walk away free of charge because that would be unfair on top of unfairness, but what would like is for them to be treated equaly in the justice system, if the white kids walked away with misdeminors ( if that) then so should the black kids.
Second of all, the white kid, Barker, should have known better than to open up his mouth in front of those who would get offended by his racial comments. to me he got just what he deserved!! and no im not saying it was ok to jump him but knowing the state of the parish it was almost inevitable that one of the blacks would get offended and react, so he has no room to complain.

Posted by LAurA | September 21, 2007 7:00 PM

This comment has been deleted for rampant trolling

Posted by Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel | September 21, 2007 7:40 PM

Only a privileged white person such as Megan could possibly imagine that that is simply a harmless prank, or that it does not imply a threat.

Or a person who realizes that the last time a black man was lynched in Louisiana, none of the kids in that high school had even been born yet. No intelligent and rational person would interpret those three nooses as a threat of lynching.

Posted by Dan | September 21, 2007 9:00 PM

This comment has been deleted for rampant trolling

Posted by commie atheist | September 21, 2007 9:38 PM

Unbelievable. You're advocating for continued jail time for 16 and 17 year olds who beat up a kid who by every account had been calling them ni**er and bragging about how one of them was just beaten up at an all white party. But the white people who committed a hate crime and a string of assaults against black students including the shotgun incident, a beating at an all white party, and the aforementioned nooses deal, as well as Barker bringing a loaded gun to school a few days after the incident, well, they're white, they should just go free.

"Not sure how to adjudicate justice?" Sure you are: Let whites go free, jail black people for the most of the rest of their natural lives. Exxagerate the chrges from what is simple assault to "Attempted Murder." Tack on Aggravated Assault. Can't make that stick because Louisiana law requires the use of a deadly weapon for aggravated assault? Call a sneaker a deadly weapon. Bar the parents from the trial because they are "witnesses." But don't call the "witnesses." While you're at it, make sure the DA's good friend is the Public defender and make sure he doesn't mount a defense. And after the adult charges re dropped, make sure the kid doesn't make bail. Meanwhile let the whites who committed all those assaults on black people enjoy their Friday evening. How horrified are your parents to have birthed someone who advocates for two standards of justice for pople based on their color?

Posted by Max power | September 21, 2007 10:49 PM

A local minister, Eddie Thompson (who was one of the earliest critics of white racism in Jena), has posted on the Internet a list of everything the national media has gotten wrong about the Jena story. I've taken the liberty of rearranging it and shortening it, so go here to see the original:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=17296&id=32967

- Jena does have racial problems. Jena does have bigotry and prejudice, just like every other town in America, perhaps even worse than some. If there were no racial problems, there would have been no nooses hung from a tree. There would not be one white student beaten and six black students charged with attempted second-degree murder. The local ministers would not have hurriedly called a meeting to deal with the issue. The cameras of the world would not have focused their lenses on Jena.

- The actions of the three white students who hung the nooses (on a tree at the high school) demonstrate prejudice and bigotry. However, they were not just given "two days suspension" as reported by national news agencies. After first being expelled, then upon appeal, being allowed to re-enter the school system, they were sent to an alternative school, off-campus, for an extended period of time. They underwent investigations by Federal and Sate authorities. They were given psychological evaluations. Even when they were eventually allowed back on campus they were not allowed to be a part of the general population for weeks.

- There was no "fight" on December 4, 2006 at Jena High School, as the national media continues to characterize the event in question. Six students attacked a single student who was immediately knocked unconscious. According to sworn testimony, they stomped him, as he lay "lifeless" upon the ground.

- Justin Barker, the white student attacked, was not the first white student targeted by these black students. Others had been informed they were going to be beaten, but stayed away from school and out of sight until they felt safe.

- CNN reported that there were "obviously no witnesses to the fight." In fact, over thirty eyewitnesses, students and teachers, were questioned immediately following the attack, all of who implicated one or more of the black students arrested in the case. In fact, some of the accused black students did not stop stomping Barker until they were pulled away from him by some of the teachers, according to testimony given in the trial of Mychal Bell.

- The media continues to make the point that Justin Barker "attended a party" later that evening, insinuating that his injuries were not very severe. The Barkers, by no means a wealthy family, face medical bills already over $12,000 from the emergency room visit. Imagine what an overnight visit would have cost. Justin Barker was advised to remain hospitalized but decided he would not let the event keep him from participating in the once-in-a-lifetime, traditional Ring Ceremony at First Baptist Church in Jena, where class rings are presented to the upcoming senior class.

- The fight on December 4 was unrelated to the noose incident, or any other incident that occurred earlier in Jena that week. The media keeps reporting otherwise. There are three different boys named "Justin" involved in three different events that the media have morphed into the "Justin" who was attacked on December 4:

A. A juvenile named Justin, whose name was not released to the media, was one of the boys who hung nooses from the trees in September.

B. Three months later, Justin Sloan, not a student at Jena High, fought with one of the black students, Robert Baily, at the fair barn when a couple of black students tried to enter a private party. The next evening, at "Gotta Go" store, Justin Sloan and Robert Baily confronted one another in the parking lot. There were two other black students with Baily. As they ran towards Sloan, Sloan rushed to his truck to get a shotgun, which the black boys wrestled from him and fled.

C. On December 4, six black students at Jena High School attacked Justin Barker, who is neither of the previously mentioned young men.

- The speech given by [District Attorney] Reed Walters that included the now infamous statement "I can end your life with the stroke of a pen" was not given to a group of black students. It was given during a speech to the entire student body in an assembly called by the school's principal to calm a community that was pulling their children out of school because there were two fights one day with racial overtones. Two girls, one white and one black fought. Another student was taken to the emergency room to receive stitches.

- The national news media has not mentioned a single time that there was an FBI investigation into the hanging of the nooses and the conduct of Reed Walters that concluded there was no criminal activity or "hate crime" involved. The report is available to the media, along with court records and sworn testimony, none of which has been reported.

- It has been reported that the school has two standards of justice since white students who attacked a black student were not treated as the black students who attacked a white student. No group of white students attacked a black student at Jena High School. Fights that have occurred have always been handled equally. This was not a fight. This process was taken out of the hands of school officials when the ambulance was called to bring Justin Barker to the hospital for the attack. Both the appearance of the ambulance and Barker's visit to the emergency room requires an investigation by law enforcement.

- The "Jena Six" have repeatedly been held up as heroes by much of the race-based community and called "innocent students" by the national media. Some of these students have reputations in Jena for intimidating and sometimes beating other students. They have vandalized and destroyed both school property and community property. Some of the Jena Six have been involved in crimes not only in LaSalle Parish but also in surrounding parishes. For the most part, coaches and other adults have prevented them from being held accountable for the reign of terror they have presided over in Jena. Despite intervention by adults wanting to give them chances due their athletic potential, most of the Jena Six have extensive juvenile records. Yet their parents keep insisting that their children have never been in trouble before. These boys did not receive prejudicial treatment but received preferential treatment until things got out of hand.

- The entire black community of Jena is not being heard in this controversy, just the parents, relatives, and close friends of the Jena Six. The black community of Jena has not been involved in the protests and demonstrations called by national race-based organizations. Some state and national race crusaders have chastised them for not "rising up" with the parents to force law enforcement to "free the Jena Six." Many do agree that the charges seem wrong, but they also know the criminal history of the boys referred to as the "Jena Six." It is their neighborhood these boys have terrorized. Not even all of the parents claim that these boys should be set free with no consequence for their actions. One of the parents was interviewed, saying that the boys should suffer the fair punishment for their actions. He suggested that simple battery would be an acceptable charge. With one exception, the local black pastors do not support the demonstrations. They have been openly criticized for their lack of cooperation with the national race crusaders. One of them counseled the "Jena Six" families to not stir controversy for controversy's sake. The black pastor was openly condemned by a local radio personality sympathetic to the cause of the black parents. The rhetoric grew so intense that the black pastor was referred to as Reed Walter's "house Negro" on the local radio talk show. The pastor is consistently accused on this show of working in cooperation with Reed Walters in a plot to undermine the "Jena Six."

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 21, 2007 11:33 PM

There is no question that there is racism in Jena. There is no question that the initial noose incident was punished too lightly. However, Megan is correct when she states that freeing the Jena six is nonsense.

The six are accused of a violent crime, and it cannot be excused because the beaten teen was taunting them, or because of the earlier incidents in Jena. Words alone, no matter how foul, do not justify violence, even if you disagree with them. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew this and practiced it to perfection.

Posted by Joseph | September 21, 2007 11:48 PM

6 people should'nt beat up on 1 person they could have killed him, black people need to stop excusing these kids it sends a wrong message it also does'nt matter if jena is a racist community but i do think that sentencing them to 20 years is severe 5 years could have been enough.also if people raised their kids to have morals and led by example they would'nt be a jena in america.blaming it on racism its too convienent. and micheal bell had prior criminal cases before this incident took place so let him pay the price and to be an example to other young people. they could have done this to a black kid they should be prosecuted.

Posted by Gwen | September 21, 2007 11:49 PM

"Justin Cooper was the only witness at trial to testify that Mychal Bell kicked Justin Barker as the victim lay unconscious on the ground. Since Justin Cooper was one of the boys who admitted to hanging the nooses at Jena High School, is he a reliable witness?"

http://www.minglecity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=996

Posted by romath | September 22, 2007 12:02 AM

"Justin Cooper was the only witness at trial to testify that Mychal Bell kicked Justin Barker as the victim lay unconscious on the ground. Since Justin Cooper was one of the boys who admitted to hanging the nooses at Jena High School, is he a reliable witness?"

http://www.minglecity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=996

Posted by romath | September 22, 2007 12:04 AM

Megan,

If the white kid thought he was going to be jumped, and that's why he ran to his pickup truck, why did he pull out his shotgun, instead of just driving away? Apparently because he thought it would be more fun to point the shotgun at people.

And taking a firearm away from someone who's pointing it at you is theft? What happened to the sacred conservative right of using any reasonable means to protect your life and property? Were they supposed to disarm him, and then give him the gun right back? Are you some kind of naive liberal?

In my day people who called themselves conservatives had enough brains to figure this stuff out.

A lifelong Republican

Posted by Dan Harwick | September 22, 2007 12:30 AM

After carefully weighing all the information is this case and considering the circumstances and ages of those involved, I must agree that a grave injustice has occured in this case.

Now, I am one who is a bit tired of how often the race card has been played and the victim mentality of many blacks. That being said, if you watch court cases, as I do, it does seem that blacks are often unfairly treated in court cases. I believe that in this particular area of society, black people have a valid complaint. IMO, all people should be given an equal shot in all things in this country.

Particularly, in this case, where racial tensions, tauntings, and violence had already been built up for some time, some leniency for the Jena 6 needs to take place. These kids are young and have their whole lives ahead of them. How sad it would be to take away those lives before they even really began by handing out inordinately long jail sentences. Considering the circumstance and the ages of those involved, I think the most these kids should spend in jail is 1 year.
Finally, I think that this whole society should change to focus on the things that unite us, rather than divide us. We all love, hurt, laugh, cry .... we are all unitedly human. We should all be treated equally, as humans. I should not be denied employment and college entrance/scholarships/grants because I am not ethnic and these black kids should not get years and years in jail just because their not white.

Posted by SarahM | September 22, 2007 12:32 AM

Hey Dan,

While I don't know when the last "official lynching" happened, the idea that racism in Louisiana is a thing of the past is absurd:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0923-02.htm
http://blackstrikes.com/pages/media.htm

The nooses were hardly a fun welcome sign. But you'd have no idea what its like to be a black man in the South. Say, in Tulia, Texas, maybe?

Posted by Justin | September 22, 2007 1:49 AM

Lady Justice oughta just be holding a damn rusty trombone instead of scales with people like you running around writing crap like this.

Posted by d | September 22, 2007 4:15 AM

Well i cant help but wonder would there have been a ralley to support a group of white kids that beat up and kicked the heck out of a black kid and put him in the hospital for 2 days like happen to this white kid. No ther would have been no support for them but the black kid in the hospital would have had rev. al and all the others there because this would have been considered a hate crime. so it seems to me there are some double standards here no matter how this played out the white people would have been in the wrong. i dont think that every thing in this case was served up right but i also dont understand why the hoopla.

Posted by Bill Masters | September 22, 2007 7:12 AM

I was looking for a sign that said,
"Nothing Wrong With a Beat Down".

Or maybe,
"No More Blacks in Jail"?

"Lock Up Some White Kids Instead"?

Does "No Justice, No Peace" mean
"Meet Our Demands Or We'll Riot"?

Posted by R | September 22, 2007 8:17 AM

Not sure if this has been commented on, but consider this:
What if 6 white kids ganged up on and repeatedly kicked 1 black kid in the head after he had been knocked unconscious? Wouldn't Al Sharpton be down in Jena demanding that the 6 white kids be charged with attempted murder? Continuing to stomp and kick someone while they are unconscious is an attempt to do serious bodily harm to that person and doing it 6 on 1 is even more so.
I want to be clear that I'm not excusing the hanging of the nooses on the tree or any racial taunting by the white kid, but have any of you ever heard the phrase "two wrongs do not make a right?"

Posted by Marsh | September 22, 2007 10:29 AM

RickM:
Here is your reporting on whether the kid was knocked unconscious:
* Coach Benjy Lewis gave two statements immediately after the school incident in which he clearly states that Justin Barker was facing him when Malcolm Shaw (not Mychal Bell) struck Barker from behind. “I saw Malcolm Shaw hit Justin Barker with his right fist to the right side of Justin’s head, right around the temple,” Lewis wrote. “Justin went down face first, knocked out . . .” Most witnesses agree that a single punch knocked Barker out cold. The only adult who witnessed the punch says Mychal Bell didn’t throw it.
http://www.minglecity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=996

Posted by Marsh | September 22, 2007 10:34 AM

Beating a victim unconscious is not a civil right. It is a civil crime. Reject the word racism in this case: it is the carnival bark of con men.

Posted by JFK | September 22, 2007 11:44 AM

I'm not sure which would horrify me more as a parent: having given birth to a kid who ganged up on a loudmouth and kicked him in the head; or having raised a kid who thought that lynching threats made a witty and appropriate practical joke.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by Xanthippas | September 22, 2007 11:55 AM

Actually, before the black kids beat the white kid, a white student pulled a shot gun on a group of black kids. When the black kids wrestled the shotgun away from the white attacker and called the cops, the black kids were arrested for theft...how's that for fair?

Posted by Dania | September 22, 2007 12:05 PM

i dont care which way u put it is still a racist act if that white boy didnt verbally assult them boys and hangin them nooses on them trees he wouldnt have got the s@!% beat outta him yall all leaving out the fact that them black boys did report what them white boys was doin and what happened it was ignored they got in trouble in school and a slap on the back did they learn their lesson no they kept going until they got what they was lookin for what was the black kids supposed to do sit back and let it escalte until one of them lost their life i dont think so joke or no joke you dont play like that if them black boys is getting in trouble with the law so should that white boy because he threatened them boys life when he hung them nooses on them trees shit if the law states that we are equal then act like it hell it dont matter what color your skin is if you do something wrong you should be held accountable for it and that white boy is just so much in the wrong as them black boys

Posted by quita | September 22, 2007 1:05 PM

I dont know what this site is or who the author is for that matter...all i know is i finally found another person with some sembleance of sense in their brains...these kids deserve to go to jail and the american public and media is giving kids the message that if you feel you have been wronged then go ahead and mercifully beat someone for it whether they had anything to do with it or not...whoever this Megan is I applaud her and want her to know there are still some people in the world who know the difference between right and wrong!

Posted by dan | September 22, 2007 2:55 PM

this meagan must be white, and that right there is an example of what is going wrong in are society today. The thoughts, and people like her. Give me a break, anyone who is against Jena 6 has a problem. Getting life for a group jump, is un-called for. There has been plenty of those that envolved white on black, and has been settled a different way. But not in Louisiana, they wanna ack like the boy died, even though he went to a social event.

Posted by keemdoola | September 22, 2007 4:56 PM

Oooh, I can play this game too!

this keemdoola must be black, and that right there is an example of what is going wrong in our (fixed that for ya) society today. The thoughts and people like him. Give me a break, anyone who is for Jena 6 has a problem. Getting life for a group jump is absolutely justified if you continue to beat someone after he is unconscious. There have been plenty of those that involved white on black and have been settled

Jail the Jena 6

Comments (108)