Racial Profiling

[sabrown100]

The torture debate went off topic for a while about it so I have created a dedicated thread.

Should police be allowed to search someone just because they have some of the charechteristics of the group causing terrorism (i'm not talking about identifying specific people). Is this an essential tactic in "the war on terror" or simply racism.

Click here for more information... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling)

[davious]

Its more than terrorism...Investigators have been using racial profiling of some type for centuries. They also do psychological profiling, etc. Its a common investigative technique. If they see a white guy driving around in a BMW in a very poor part of town, comprised of mostly minorities, where there is known to be heavy drug use, of course the police are going to be suspicious. The BMW "doesn't belong" in that neighborhood, and the man wouldn't fit the typical profile of someone that lives there...ergo, watch him, he might be attempting to buy some drugs.

If a black guy commits a crime in Japan, and the Japanese police know it was a black guy, but not who, are you telling us that the Japanese police shouldn't be suspicious of black guys in the area? There are going to be very few black people in Japan, compared to elsewhere, of course the Japanese police are going to be looking at them closely...they stick out. In a country that is going to be 99.9% the same ethnic group, those that make up that .001% are going to be scrutinized more. That's life.

If there are a series of brutal murders, the victims are all white women, the Investigator is going to create a profile of the killer, that will include that the killer is most likely a white male. Why? Because they know from experience, that serial killers tend to stick to their own ethnic group. If further evidence comes out that the killer is not a white male, they may change their profile, but, they will certainly use that as a starting point. Is that somehow racist? Or is it simply good investigative technique, allowing them to narrow it down without wasting too many resources?

All of the terrorists that boarded those planes on September 11, 2001 had things in common. They were all between 18-35, Muslim, male, from the Middle East, were traveling alone, and belonged to an organization that has promised more terrorist attacks. Is it not prudent then to be on the lookout for more people that fit that profile? Not saying you arrest anyone that fits that description, but if you are airport security, and you know that there is a valid threat out there, and based on Al Queda's rhetoric, there definitely is a threat, and you have men that fit the same description of those terrorists that committed a heinous crime earlier, its only prudent that you watch them a little closer. As someone who has been searched by airport security, had my luggage rummaged through, if they somehow feel put out by it, feel discriminated against because they were checked, I say TOO FREAKING BAD. The one thing everyone aboard that plane I got on after being searched knew, is that I didn't have anything in my luggage or on my body that could be used as a threat. When I got on that plane after being searched, everyone who saw me get searched knew that I was safe. That at least 1 of the 100 or so passengers they were flying with posed no threat to them.

[sabrown100]

If a black guy commits a crime in Japan, and the Japanese police know it was a black guy, but not who, are you telling us that the Japanese police shouldn't be suspicious of black guys in the area?

I said unless they are looking for specific people.

[moking]

Its not just for terrorism. its for crime in general. I have been stopped by the police before so they can ask me random questions (of course I had the right to walk away). The question me like My daddy just robbed a store and is hiding out in my house! Racial Profiling does nothing in the end. in my case as a black citizen and live in a dominate black area, Racial profiling leads to more angered races and more blacks (or any high profile race) hating the federal police. Its a way of saying; "Opps we taught you did the crime but we sorry you free to go". In most cases, they arrest a person who was not involve.

[Troll]

Racial profiling does in fact help reduce redunancy.

If I was a cop and get a report about a crossburning and two trucks pass me by, truck A with black teens and truck B with white guys and white sheets, you can bet I'm gonna skip the black teens truck. If the call was about a driveby, guess what?

Now does it always work out that it is correct? No. Nothing does though, does it? But it is a step to eliminate initial redunancy

[urisStar]

Racial profiling does in fact help reduce redunancy.

If I was a cop and get a report about a crossburning and two trucks pass me by, truck A with black teens and truck B with white guys and white sheets, you can bet I'm gonna skip the black teens truck. If the call was about a driveby, guess what?

Now does it always work out that it is correct? No. Nothing does though, does it? But it is a step to eliminate initial redunancy

White guy in white sheet is so much different than black skin guy. If white guy did not have on white sheet would you have still stop him?

[Game Shark]

White guy in white sheet is so much different than black skin guy. If white guy did not have on white sheet would you have still stop him?

Well, if it was a cross burning and it had to be either Truck A or Truck B, I would be more inclined to stop the Truck with white guys in it.

[hszmv]

But it is used. That's one of the reasons that researchers are so baffled by the school shooter. There is no profile. And when they were looking for the DC beltway snipers, they were searching for white guys (because white guys are more likely to act as serial killers).

Now in both cases, profiling was proven wrong (despite the middle class white teens who normally shoot up a school, there was one case where a lower class Native American teen did such. And the belt way snipers turned out to be two black guys). But in the general case, the warning signs are warning signs because they generally hold true.

WASPs terrorists generally act alone, where as Mid-Eastern terrorists generally act in small cells. Not always but mostly. Its not so much making a stereotype as elliminating the unlikely. I myself, a white kid, have been asked by cops to see ID while walking around campus at night. That is just people being safe. Not profiling.

[moking]

I myself, a white kid, have been asked by cops to see ID while walking around campus at night. That is just people being safe. Not profiling.
Thats not the same as being stop and questioned because of a nearby crime. Asking for a studnet ID is fair and not racial profiling at all. Its School policy.

Yes, Many people were looking out for white guys in the Sniper inccidented, when they were blacks (of Carribbian) in return. Racial Profiling maybe work but some people use it intentionally and it pisses me off when someone say "oh that drive-by yesterday had to be black teens". I also hate when one race plays up to these profiles too. In reality, truth is, we make these profiles ourselves. I just think racial profiling is making matters worst.

[Troll]

Hey, if it was a cross burning, I'd suspect most white people, even Hillary and Bill Clinton over most black people. I could end up beign wrong. hell the report could be wrong and it could have been black guys burning an X that got blown around in the wind and ended up at an angle that looked like a cross. But it would be pointless of me to waste time initially searching the homes of 83 year old asian women who lived nearby until, as time went by, evidence pointed towards them.

See, everyone has to have a starting point and certain crimes are more likely to be committed by certain people than others. That is actually proven. Most serial killers are white males between 20 and 40, same goes with serial rapists. Now you can start off staring at a wall and hoping you get lucky, or you can follow the pre-established trends (profile) and if evidence points to the profile being off you adjust.

It ain't nice, it ain't politically correct, but it is a reality and reality is a harsh thing that doesn't give a damn what anyone's sensitivities think. I mean why do you think suspect A is always the husband when the wife is killed? Maybe becuase it usually is the husband? Could it ever not be the husband? yeah. so we start with him and eliminate him then move on

[hszmv]

It could have been very well thought by the guys who ask to see my photo ID (school had nothing to do with it) profiled me as a 20-40 white male who was wandering around campus at 1:30 in the morning as being up to something (especially since he ran into me in a part of the campus which is out of the way for most of the students). He then asked me what I was doing (clearing my head after a grueling homework assignement) and we went on our seperate ways.

Now, had a young women's body been found in the area in a few hours, that guy would say something like "Hey, caught this weird kid walking around the area a few hours before the vic showed up. We got no major leads, DNA tests won't be back for weeks. We need to look like we're working, so let's ask the guy some questions and see if he can help."

Most cops aren't crooked dirty racists out to pin a crime on some member of a minority. Most want to do their job, and part of that is looking for something out of the ordinary. A person near the scene of the crime is likely to have noticed something (or been the dude who did it) and would offer information of varying degrees of usefulness (from an actual arrest, to a timeline (I.E. I was in the area around 1:30, the vic was found an hour later, so in order to get the bad guy, we need to put him here within an hour of two events. If he was here 24 hours ago, we've got bupkiss.)).

[svenge]

I mean why do you think suspect A is always the husband when the wife is killed? Maybe becuase it usually is the husband? Could it ever not be the husband? yeah. so we start with him and eliminate him then move on

Yes, but hopefully the police aren't suspecting all husbands of killing Mrs. Johnson, they're just suspecting Mr. Johnson. Not the same as racial profiling.

--

Of course it's logical to use "racial profiling" in a situation where one or more witnesses said they saw an Asian man running out of a store after gunshots were heard. Naturally, you look for an Asian male. It's also smart to use it in a very high profile terrorist attempt/attack or string of murders where you have a team of trained professionals analyzing the patterns and behaviors of the possible perps. Where it gets tricky is when there is no one saying "I saw a Black guy do it", yet the police target Blacks specifically (think traffic violations). Is this fair? And it is very easy for a person who has never experienced a situation like this to say something like "well, better safe than sorry!" That minimizes the humiliation and frustration someone feels when they are pulled over and harassed by a police officer for doing nothing besides having brown skin.

[Troll]

It really isn't racial profiling though so much as profiling a person or type of person who just so happens to tend to fit a specific race depending upon the type of crime. As I said, historically, a serial killer is a white guy. Historically a driveby shooter is a younger black guy.

If anything, men should be the only ones offended as no one ever lables women as anything, though some feminidsts may be offended as they may feel left out. Hard to say on that one. ;-)

[davious]

Well, we keep getting these twenty something female teachers sleeping with 14 year old boys, we may have to start including them, LOL...and for the record, why couldn't any of them have taught at MY school? j/k

[sabrown100]

As I said, historically, a serial killer is a white guy. Historically a driveby shooter is a younger black guy.

Which is the main argument against racial profiling - why should someone have their cereer thrown away because they get arrested because they come from a minority commonly associated with a certain crime.

[hszmv]

If they didn't do it, they aren't charged and it needs not be reported on applications. If they are wrongly charged, evidence brought to light can absolve (sp) them. Very few people are damned because of what they were suspected of doing.

[FurryPanda]

Which is the main argument against racial profiling - why should someone have their cereer thrown away because they get arrested because they come from a minority commonly associated with a certain crime.

Only completely destroys your career if you need security clearance, and then you can get a job in the private sector for about the same money.

[davious]

It also assumes that someone questioned gets arrested...I think some folks are thinking that racial profiling = automatic arrests...which simply isn't the case at all...all it does is provide a starting point for investigations...if the facts end up leading them in a different direction, they move in a different direction...

sabrown100, you are confusing the issues...you are assuming that racial profile equals racial arresting. If someone got arrested, chances are there is actual proof they did it, or the police have sufficient reason to believe so. If someone were actually arrested merely because of the color of their skin, without any proof at all, I don't think anyone would disagree that it is wrong, discriminatory, and all that.

[moking]

Well, we keep getting these twenty something female teachers sleeping with 14 year old boys, we may have to start including them, LOL...and for the record, why couldn't any of them have taught at MY school? j/k
Well that can also apply to males again.... *cough* gym teachers *cough*. What about Sunday service or bible "studies" with Father Mackenburg.... ok ok so all this is crazy haha

In the end, it makes people scared of the race (or gender in some cases) in general. Like Some white people are so scared to walk down the street next to a black person because that "racial profile" says they are most likely to steal your purse. I am all for harmony ( I know it don't exist) and like the idea of people of all races being able to do things together without thinking "This black guy may do a drive by" or "the white kid may shoot the school" or "the middle easterns may hijack a plane". I never let this stuff scare me. I treat all races the same and the idea of something happening never comes to my mind.

[davious]

shoot, why not include the thousands of black women that get extremely pissed off when they see a black man dating a white woman? White people aren't the only ones who have problems with racial stereotyping...Its great that you never let stuff scare you, but, then again, you aren't in law enforcement. You and I don't see the same things cops do. While I do have family members in law enforcement, that isn't the same thing as me seeing things for myself...hypothetical...Is it still racial profiling though, if the cop pulling over the black motorist for speeding or whatever is black himself? Or is it only wrong if its a white cop pulling the black motorist over?

[FurryPanda]

Racial profiling is just observing a pattern and making assumptions based off of it. The pattern happens to be politically incorrect though. Much as I adore statistics, i can't bring myself to agree with this though.

This is because from my experience. At my old school there were, sum total 15 black kids, and during my seventh grade year ten people got in huge trouble for graffitting the building, and they got expelled. Eight of them were black and for the rest of the year the other seven kids were watched like hawks, and it was awful for them. It was perfectly logical for them to be watched, and it was cause and effect, but I didn't like it.

So, in summary, rationally I favor racial profiling, but I can't bring myself to whole heartedly agreeing with it, yknow?

[moking]

Racial profiling is just observing a pattern and making assumptions based off of it. The pattern happens to be politically incorrect though. Much as I adore statistics, i can't bring myself to agree with this though.

This is because from my experience. At my old school there were, sum total 15 black kids, and during my seventh grade year ten people got in huge trouble for graffitting the building, and they got expelled. Eight of them were black and for the rest of the year the other seven kids were watched like hawks, and it was awful for them. It was perfectly logical for them to be watched, and it was cause and effect, but I didn't like it.

So, in summary, rationally I favor racial profiling, but I can't bring myself to whole heartedly agreeing with it, yknow?
Trust me, I do know. We had a white teacher who lost her DVD (history tape) and the first thing she did was "Who stole the tape!?" We laughed because it was sitting right behind her desk in plain view. Whats worst is she didn't apologize. Its ok to make mistakes, so just apologize! You know?

Another thing that had me heated was the Jena 6 accident down in the south. punishing some black boys for fight a white boy (who had only bruises and nothing serious) after the white boy made racsist remarks and hung a noose over a tree.

[davious]

Trust me, I do know. We had a white teacher who lost her DVD (history tape) and the first thing she did was "Who stole the tape!?" We laughed because it was sitting right behind her desk in plain view. Whats worst is she didn't apologize. Its ok to make mistakes, so just apologize! You know?

Another thing that had me heated was the Jena 6 accident down in the south. punishing some black boys for fight a white boy (who had only bruises and nothing serious) after the white boy made racsist remarks and hung a noose over a tree.

Do some more research...there has been no indication that he had anything to do with the noose hanging...and you are essentially justifying vigilante justice...The Jena six's beating up the one white student had nothing to do with the hanging of the nooses, that was a convenient excuse that was only applied later. Are you suggesting that it is perfectly okay to beat someone up? Even if he laughed at some racial comments (whether Barker actually made any or not is in dispute) does that justify the black students physically attacking him?

The one black student who was charged more than the others, Mychal Bell, had a history of violent behavior, and the superintendent at the school thought that the attack on Justin Barker was premeditated. You don't actually know the injuries Barker suffered, do you? He was kicked until he was a bloody mess, and unconscious, one of his eyes was swollen shut, he hand injuries on his face, his hands and ears, but that is nothing serious, right? He went to the hospital...but nothing serious. If this had been six white students physically beating a black student, it would obviously have been derided by black leaders as a hate crime, yet, when the reverse happens, they have to defend their own...screw the facts...

Next, you will point out that all of the jury members were white...while ignoring that black jurors were called, and none showed up...If none of the black citizens bothered to appear for their jury duty, the fact that the jury was all white is nobody's fault but their own.

Since when is it acceptable for anyone to commit assault and battery on another? The Jena Six committed a hate crime against Justin Barker. They deserved to be punished, as the law provides.

Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

[moking]

Um excuse you, but I know the whole story and its still unjustice. Bell was treated as an adult. The fact is, when racial issues are brought up amongst children, they should be solved and not by sending someone to prison. If it wasn't for the millions of people who marched down to Jena and put pressure on the court, Bell would have been charge with more then what was needed. The boy was reported to calling out racial slurs. A bunch of teen will not just go and beat up a boy (when its hundreds more in the school) because they wanted to. I know about the jury situation and thats why its even more racial profiling. An all white jury? Hell yeah they will see the situation as "Another violent black kid". Regardless of the fact that the blacks did not show up to the jury. When you put one race together to decided the fate of another, they are bound to exegerrate the situation.

Plain and simple, It was a case of issues amongst the students and should have been solved in other manners, like, getting them to cooperate with each other.

Also, you sound really ignorrant. Yes black people would stand at the site of unjustice and NO WE do not jump at any violence towards blacks themselves. Did you see us jumping at the DC snipers? MANY races marched down to Jena and MANY races (including whites) stood beside the fact that the case itself seems unjustice in a small way, So don't pull the "blacks saw it as unjust" card. Many people around the world saw it as unjustice. Did you read that in the article? It was like Civil Rights Movement all over again. you saw the website created. The south is a very racial part of the US and still today have not recover after the Civil Rights Movement. Racial Profiling was a HUGE factor in determining the fate of Bell.

Also, as the article points out, Why haven't these students been charged with "hate" crime? Hang nooses and get suspened? Thats all? Hate speech is against the law. Did you know that?

[svenge]

shoot, why not include the thousands of black women that get extremely pissed off when they see a black man dating a white woman? White people aren't the only ones who have problems with racial stereotyping


Please don't equate these "thousands" of Black women being angry that a Black man is dating a White woman with unfair harassment and treatment of Blacks by law enforcement. (Even jokingly). Do you realize that this unfair treatment can be and has been systematic and intentional?

[davious]

Um excuse you, but I know the whole story and its still unjustice. Bell was treated as an adult.

Bell was treated as an adult, because of his prior record, not because he was black. Bell was the only one with the history of violent behavior...that's why he was tried as an adult...That kind of thing happens to teens of all colors with a prior history. There was nothing racially motivated about trying Bell as an adult. If there was a racial motivation, all six should have been tried as an adult.


The fact is, when racial issues are brought up amongst children, they should be solved and not by sending someone to prison.

I agree...however the Jena six were not arrested for a racial issue, they were arrested for assault and battery...which, in case you didn't know, is a crime. And, had it been six white students attacking a black student, you KNOW it would have been denounced as a hate crime...so why the double standard?


If it wasn't for the millions of people who marched down to Jena and put pressure on the court, Bell would have been charge with more then what was needed. The boy was reported to calling out racial slurs. A bunch of teen will not just go and beat up a boy (when its hundreds more in the school) because they wanted to. I know about the jury situation and thats why its even more racial profiling.

So what you are saying, is that you are a liar, because in the Waterboarding Terrorists thread, you specifically stated that you do not believe in an "eye for an eye". Yet, here you are not only advocating that, you are advocating worse retribution...if they attacked Barker because he ALLEGEDLY uttered racial slurs, wouldn't that be more than merely an eye for an eye? An eye for an eye would have been them uttering racial slurs back at him...but no, you instead are in favor of going beyond an eye for an eye, advocating that it is acceptable to assault a student so that he has to be hospitalized. Is it okay if me and five of my friends go assault a black guy because he allegedly called us honkys or crackers? Perhaps the white devil? If we claim he called us white people by a racial slur, based on your stance with the Jena six, am I correct in assuming that you would be perfectly fine with it?

An all white jury? Hell yeah they will see the situation as "Another violent black kid". Regardless of the fact that the blacks did not show up to the jury. When you put one race together to decided the fate of another, they are bound to exegerrate the situation.

Again, the only reason the jury was all white was because none of the black members of the jury pool bothered to show up, after being notified they had been selected for jury duty. That is hardly racist.

Plain and simple, It was a case of issues amongst the students and should have been solved in other manners, like, getting them to cooperate with each other.

See? NOW you are getting it...but, if you believed that, you should have gotten mad at the six students for assaulting Justin Barker, because that was certainly not cooperation...The Jena six were guilty of assault, period. They committed crimes, period. They were arrested for those crimes, period.

Also, you sound really ignorrant. Yes black people would stand at the site of unjustice and NO WE do not jump at any violence towards blacks themselves. Did you see us jumping at the DC snipers? MANY races marched down to Jena and MANY races (including whites) stood beside the fact that the case itself seems unjustice in a small way, So don't pull the "blacks saw it as unjust" card. Many people around the world saw it as unjustice. Did you read that in the article? It was like Civil Rights Movement all over again. you saw the website created. The south is a very racial part of the US and still today have not recover after the Civil Rights Movement. Racial Profiling was a HUGE factor in determining the fate of Bell.

Attempting to subvert the legal system to allow criminals who committed assault and battery to be free is hardly a civil rights issue. How dare you try to equate the Jena six with the civil rights movement!

And, now who sounds ignorant? How was racial profiling even involved with Mychal Bell? He and the other five were caught red handed beating Justin Barker. There were hundreds of witnesses...the school administration, the authorities knew exactly who did it, and arrested them...I am beginning to wonder if you even understand what racial profiling actually is. They didn't go after the Jena six because they were black, they arrested the Jena six because there were multiple witnesses who positively identified them specifically as the ones that attacked Justin Barker...

Also, as the article points out, Why haven't these students been charged with "hate" crime? Hang nooses and get suspened? Thats all? Hate speech is against the law. Did you know that?

Why haven't they indeed? Perhaps because there actually isn't any law in the state of Louisiana that the students who hung the nooses actually violated...And, Justin Barker was not involved in that, the best I can tell.

but, that really is neither here nor there...The nooses and the Jena six don't really have anything to do with each other, the noose incident was only connected to the Jena six after the fact...the fact remains, had the situations been reversed, and it been six white students assaulting one black student, they WOULD have been charged with a hate crime, and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others would have had a coronary over it...So, why indeed, haven't six black students who assaulted a white student over a clearly racial issue been charged with a hate crime?

[moking]

So what you are saying, is that you are a liar, because in the Waterboarding Terrorists thread, you specifically stated that you do not believe in an "eye for an eye". Yet, here you are not only advocating that, you are advocating worse retribution...if they attacked Barker because he ALLEGEDLY uttered racial slurs, wouldn't that be more than merely an eye for an eye? An eye for an eye would have been them uttering racial slurs back at him...but no, you instead are in favor of going beyond an eye for an eye, advocating that it is acceptable to assault a student so that he has to be hospitalized. Is it okay if me and five of my friends go assault a black guy because he allegedly called us honkys or crackers? Perhaps the white devil? If we claim he called us white people by a racial slur, based on your stance with the Jena six, am I correct in assuming that you would be perfectly fine with it?
That does not make me a liar and the correct word would be contradiction, However, I never said The six boys "deserved" to beat up Justin. What I said is, they did not just randomely jump up and fight the kid at no cost. Plus, this is not the same situation compared to a person being waterboard who maybe a suspect and not the actual person in the planes during 9/11. People should not fight period, but the six guys DID NOT just jump up and fight Justin.



Again, the only reason the jury was all white was because none of the black members of the jury pool bothered to show up, after being notified they had been selected for jury duty. That is hardly racist.
Again, Regardless with blacks not showing up, the all white gury saw the situation in Justin's POV and over exgerrated the case because of the fact, Its a "possibility" that they could have saw it in a more racial way.


Attempting to subvert the legal system to allow criminals who committed assault and battery to be free is hardly a civil rights issue. How dare you try to equate the Jena six with the civil rights movement!
But Mr. Davious.... I taught the Civil Rights Movement was all about the "legal" system? Wasn't white people hanging blacks and getting away with it? Didn't "laws" tell us were to sit and go? hmmm I keep to my deal of saying you sound ignorant. if you know, the civil rights movement was a fight over the laws that made our lives miserable. Jena Six was making it miserable for these black boys who had been involved in so many races issues leading up to this fight. Speaking of "liars" or "contradictions" didn't you say this exact qoute?

"Then, lets assume that Middle Easterners are being harassed more at airports now...what possible reason could that be? Perhaps because its been Middle Easterners exclusively that have been hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings?"

Now apply that to the Jena Six Situation with whites in the south and years (longer then the middle east attacks on America) of beatings and torture. Wouldn't you feel defensive like you say in the waterboard thread? hmmm becareful because contradictions are everywhere my friend.

And, now who sounds ignorant? How was racial profiling even involved with Mychal Bell?
Read Above, or let me make it easy for you and repeat myself. An All white jury is bound to take that they are black into account when deciding their fate. 12 people? You think race was not an issue? You is living in a blind world, because in the South (my birth place), Race is always an issue. Thats why they are holding onto capital punishment. RACIAL PROFILING is everywhere, even on a jury of 12 whites.



Why haven't they indeed? Perhaps because there actually isn't any law in the state of Louisiana that the students who hung the nooses actually violated...And, Justin Barker was not involved in that, the best I can tell.

There is not a hate crime law in LA?
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf


Long Story short and to end This Jena Six topic. Racial Profiling is used amongst people, law enforcers, law personels, and the jury. How can you not think about the possibility of Racial Profiling on that jury of 12 whites! Thats insane and you is ignoring what the world called "An unjust Act". Try explaining that to the 60,000 people who rally in Jena (of all races).

[hszmv]

A jury that had to be approved as unbiased by both attorneys is racist? I'm sorry, but the defender of the one kid that was charged should have had the all white jury thrown out if he thought it would hurt his case, and he would have had the option to make such a claim during jury selection (which the defense tries to manipulate very much to their advantage). If you want to play the "typical Southern" card, let's also assume that gossip is a way of life. In a town of 3000, such as Jena, word would get out about who is a WASP.

And actually, the Jena Six had a history of "just jumping up and fighting people". The ring leader assaulted a white guy who did not go to Jena HS in a parking lot several weeks earlier, again out numbering him.

Now, while hanging a Noose does fall under a federal hate crime, it is not something a juvinile can be charged with (I'm sure there is a good reason to this, I just am unaware of it). How ever, the three involved (whose identities were not revealed, again in accordance with the Juvie system) were sent to Alternative School (which is the equivalent of prision in school systems, since they must be Politically Correct) and recieved three days of in school suspension. While the identities of the three are unknown, if Baker was involved, someone (other then the attackers) would have announced that connection. At the very least, some media person looking for a big break would have jumped on the connection. No connection has been established.

As you have said earlier, Moking, two wrongs do not make a right. What the three who hung the noose did was wrong. What the Jena Six did was wrong. Neither helped to make a tolorent society. But living in the past doesn't help to make a better future. If a black person assumes that, because a white person's parents were part of the problem, so is he, than there is no hope. The sins of the father are not the sin's of the son's. I am very ashamed of what my grandmother has said about my roomate (who is from Nigeria) at Thanksgiving dinner, even though the man was not present.

If we are to have a truely color blind society, we must recognize that the three white kids and six black boys were wrong. Not pick and choose.

[SilentPsycho]

Again, Regardless with blacks not showing up, the all white gury saw the situation in Justin's POV and over exgerrated the case because of the fact, Its a "possibility" that they could have saw it in a more racial way.

...

Read Above, or let me make it easy for you and repeat myself. An All white jury is bound to take that they are black into account when deciding their fate. 12 people? You think race was not an issue? You is living in a blind world, because in the South (my birth place), Race is always an issue. Thats why they are holding onto capital punishment. RACIAL PROFILING is everywhere, even on a jury of 12 whites.

For once, I actually have to agree with davious. Just because someone is white doesn't mean that they are automatically racist. Ever consider that the jury members might have actually not been racist, and in fact actually just did what they supposed to as a member of a jury and listen. I know that if anyone tried to suggest I would be racist in a court of law, solely on the fact that I have white skin, I would tell them where to shove it. If I try my best to be impartial and reserve judgement when judging my friends in-class assignment, why do you think I would have a biased opinion towards a total stranger? Please, stop stereotyping.

[davious]

I wonder if everyone who testified or gave a statement to the police about who was involved in the brutal attack were racist too? Moking, there were potentially hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the whole thing...did the fact that numerous people knew exactly who was responsible for the attack have anything to do with the jury finding Bell guilty, I wonder? LOL Racist jury, or hundreds of witnesses positively ID'ing them...hmm...thats a tough one. NOT.

And you don't understand racial profiling at all, based on your comments. Had Justin Barker been found beaten up, from an assault that had no witnesses, and the police automatically assumed that his assailants were black, THAT would be racial profiling. However, that simply does not apply here. Justin Barker was beaten up in plain sight, in front of hundreds of witnesses who could positively ID those attacking him. The police didn't have to start their investigation anywhere, based on prior statistics, all they had to do was listen to the hundreds of witnesses who said Mychal Bell and gang were the ones responsible. Or, are you suggesting that the entire school is racist for implicating them falsely? That, somehow, the other students, administration, etc somehow plotted against the Jena six, by framing them for a crime they didn't commit? PUHLEASE. The Jena six did it it broad daylight, with hundreds of witnesses. GUILTY. When you are obviously guilty of committing assault, you should serve the sentence required, not be freed because an ignoramus like Al Sharpton says you should.

[Lemon&Lime]

I'm not sure if this is relevant (it may be) but the people involved in this thread may find it interesting. My psychology teacher told us about the following experiment;

A psychologist showed some people a video clip of a white man killing a black man. More than half of the people who watched the video, when they were asked questions about it a certain amount of time after watching the video, 'remembered' that it was the black guy who killed the white guy, and they were very sure about it.

See? Not even our subconscious brain can help racial profiling.

[sabrown100]

I wonder if everyone who testified or gave a statement to the police about who was involved in the brutal attack were racist too? Moking, there were potentially hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the whole thing...did the fact that numerous people knew exactly who was responsible for the attack have anything to do with the jury finding Bell guilty, I wonder? LOL Racist jury, or hundreds of witnesses positively ID'ing them...hmm...thats a tough one. NOT.

For the 1500th time - this is a debate about suspecting groups of people by race - not individual people.

[moking]

If we are to have a truely color blind society, we must recognize that the three white kids and six black boys were wrong. Not pick and choose.
Thats the whole point, but some people don't see it like that. As Davious pointed out earlier, Bell was in the wrong. PERIOD. Thats not the point. Thepoint is both boys (and races) was in the wrong. Most of Bell's previous charges are all dealing with the same racist crap. Its should have been solved and not OVER charge Bell because Justine is sitting in court with a black eye. Also, Bell and his family should have hired a better lawyer. They do not understand the court system and the laws. They set back and let things happen till people had to rally down there and reduce his sentence.

Also, the parking lot incident was alos a racial issue. It involved a white boy and he ran home to get his father shotgun. Bell fought the gun off of the boy.

Let me ask you Davious. If it wasn't unjust, then WHY did they reduce his sentence to 18 months? Please don't say the pressure from the people. Now it would be stupid for Bell to dismiss the entire white jury. How would he know they are racist?

@SilentPsycho: Did I ever say all whites are rascist? I think I qouted clearly that it was a "possibilty" that someone on that jury of 12 was racist.

If Jena six was not a racial issue, then Bell would be charge as an adult and serving the original amount of time that was given.

[davious]

You were the one that brought the Jena six into the discussion, Moking...

What does the parking lot situation have to do with anything? You are trying to connect them all, when they are in fact, separate incidents.

FACT: Justin Barker was not one of the three students suspended from the school for hanging the nooses, which according to the assistant editor of the Jena Times, Craig Franklin, was intended as a prank against the WHITE members of the school rodeo team, not at black students.
FACT: Justin Barker was not one of the students that didn't let the black students into the barn party, (despite there already being other black students who had been allowed into the party) and the woman who was in charge of the party threw out all of the parties involved in that fight, including the white male who was involved, who was later charged with battery.


FACT: Justin Barker was not the one who got his dad's shotgun during the convenience store incident, and Mychal Bell was not even involved in that...You are confusing Bell with Robert Bailey, who was present at both the convenience store incident and the barn party fight, and is also one of the Jena six...Bell was not present for the shotgun incident, and to the best of the information I have, nor was he involved in the barn fight. The police maintain that Bell was charged as an adult because of his prior record, not because they felt he started it...given Bailey's presence at every incident, it seems likely Bailey was the likely instigator. What was Bell's prior record? Two assault convictions, and two criminal damage to property convictions, while on probation from the first assault conviction. Bell, to put it simply, was a troublemaker. You also conveniently leave out that the charge of attempted second degree murder was reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery on the very first day of the trial...So, your racist judge and jury reduced the charges against Bell. His sentence was reduced because his new lawyers successfully argued that some of the charges that he was charged as an adult for, couldn't be charged as an adult...basically, that the sentencing should have followed juvenile guidelines, not the adult ones. He only got 18 months out of a technicality, that the crimes had to be charged as a juvenile and not as an adult, not because the court felt he was innocent of them.

The three incidents that the Jena six supporters have claimed to be the catalyst of the attack had nothing to do with Barker at all. Neither Justin Barker or Mychal Bell were involved in those previous occasions, so please stop trying to use them as an excuse for Mychal Bell.

[jhd1189]

Ok guys, that's enough. This has degraded from a debate on racial profiling to an argument about a specific instance of possible racism. That was -not- the purpose of this debate, and I would appreciate if everyone would attempt to return to the topic at hand.