Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SHould one go to jail for this?

Makes me wonder how much legal help the teen had--was he financially on his own? Or did some organization/lawyer lend a hand? Did he have a legal "team"? Or was it a single local lawyer?

That is often the difference in the legalnomic system........


I agree with 6mm250--the judge should be in jail......



Casey

nemesis,

Are you saying the judge sentenced him according to a law that was passed on the same day? He can't do that. He has to be sentenced by what he was convicted of. If that's the case I think he can have the sentence thrown out on appeal.

Qtip
Soli deo Gloria!

You gotta be $hitt'n me!!

Mike

One can sure hope. Has the young man appealed his virdict and sentence?

In this case, wouldn't hurt my feelings a'tall if the fellows in hooded pointy-hats "visited" the judge.

He probably had a court appointed public defender that just might have been black. It's OK when everything goes their way but when it reverses, they holler "discrimanation."

Sounds fair to me.

Qtip,

I ain't saying nothing my friend......I was just interested in how the noose law came about in a state like Louisiana and I did some research on it.

Just thought it was strange how the law got passed without even one dissenter, when it's apparent that many Louisianans may not agree.......

Nemesis,

No I'm not referring to you as the one making a statement about it; just that you supplied the info, which I find alarming. Inch by inch. Free speech is slowly loosing ground.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

Please keep reminding us Nemesis and Qtip, and anyone that will listen to you! You 100% spot-on.

Yesterday I was doing a couple errands and met an old veteran, who had a WW2 sticker in the back windowe of his car. I asked him where he served and what he did. We chatted a couple minutes. He was on an LST (landing-ship-tank) at Normandy, then later on the same ship at Okinawa.

Didn't know the Navy moved vessels that quickly from one hemisphere to another during WW2, but I learned something.

He and I both agreed that current generations have forgotten "much" about his generation preserved for us. I was able to thank him for his service, he thanked me for mentioning that.

All generations need to remember the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Those are resilient institutions (not just documents), but still incredibly fragile when neglicted or disrespected.

I gotcha Qtip.........we're on the same page here.

yall mean that I have to take that little black doll that is hanging in a noose on my rear view mirrow down ?.

....Man the cops need to get busy catching all the voodoo adherents down in New Orleans sticking pins in dolls, rustling up potions to curse folks lives and such, just has to be considered an illegal intimidation.

be quiet,be politacaly correct and do not upset the large group of poeole here protesting in favor of the 6 who assalted the one or you will go to jail

Exactly. This kid did nothing to "hurt" anybody physically. The worst thing he did was hurt somebody's "feelings". This is stupidity run amok. All y'all who think he's a POS and should do hard time need to throw away your oven mitts.

Only if you're driving around down-town Bezerkly Kalifornica, or down-town Harlem. Otherwise you'll get the schiite beaten outta you!

I have a problem with this decision for a few reasons. I believe that at least two legal principles are being misinterpreted in this case.

I believe there is a first amendment issue here regarding whether the teen's actions in displaying a noose to a group of blacks is protected free speech.

"Hate speech" (which also would include public displays) is generally NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. However, in order to be considered "hate speech" the message (or actions) have to be pretty outrageous, not just offensive. Being offensive, even being an offensive racist isn't against the law and should still be protected.

No one would deny that displaying a noose to a group of blacks isn't offensive, but is it outrageously so? I think that's pushing it. Even if it is outrageous and not covered by the 1st Amend, that doesn't make it a crime. The group of blacks might have grounds for a civil action against the teen, or maybe injunctive relief, but I don't where a crime was committed.

A "Hate Crime" is suppose to be an additional federal charge that is used as an enhancement to an underlying violent (state law) crime that was racially motivated. But you have to first have an underlying crime. In this case, I don't see what crime the teen was supposed to have committed.

If I was peacefully protesting against a group of blacks and I was wearing a KKK t-shirt or hood, how is that different than what this teen did? Or if I drove by the group waving my confederate flag?

Clearly, if I then beat up a black kid while wearing the KKK t-shirt while I was screaming racist words at him, then I not only committed an assault, but I am also likely to be guilty of a federal "hate crime", which was designed to enhance the sentence of the relatively minor crime of assault.

This case doesn't make any sense to me at all. Without the underlying crime, I don't see how this rises to the level of a "hate crime"...I'm not even sure this wasn't protected speech under the 1st Amend.

If this is now the law, then it is currently a "hate crime" punishable by a federal prison sentence to make an offensive comment (or make any public display) to a person of another race.

Were they blocking the road so they couldn't pass? We have a right to express hateful views with symbolism. Not nice, but sticks and stones... you know how it goes. What did they actually do besides some symbolic hate speech?