La. teen who hung nooses gets 4 months in prison

2 hours, 18 minutes ago

A Louisiana teenager who hung nooses off the back of his truck to intimidate a group of black civil rights demonstrators has been sentenced to four months in prison.

Federal prosecutors say 19-year-old Jeremiah Munsen displayed the nooses when he drove past people who had attended a massive civil rights march in Jena on Sept. 20.

Munsen had faced up to a year in prison after pleading guilty in April to a misdemeanor charge of interfering with the marchers' federally protected right to travel.

The marchers were waiting in Alexandria for a bus home to Tennessee. They had been protesting the criminal cases against six black teenagers charged with beating a white student at Jena High School in 2006.

YES he should! that is terrible

"The marchers were waiting in Alexandria for a bus home to Tennessee. They had been protesting the criminal cases against six black teenagers charged with beating a white student at Jena High School in 2006."

Kinda balances out wouldn't you say?

g

A fellas free speech has to be protected, but only if he is in the minority.

No he shouldn't , unless he used the nooses.

That prison sentence is BS

Mike

+1

I think its a bad thing but he didnt hurt or obstruct anyone from demonstrating according to this report...kind has me scratching my head...I guess if I offend someone without any physical action, i can go to jail for it... maybe STEVE_NO will weigh in

Not only for a noose but what about those lawn jockeys or the Confederate flag? Anybody racially insensitive enough to have one of those on display should be thrown in prison as well.

The judge that imposed that sentence is the one who should be in jail.

Mike

Yup, they shoulda' put all of them marchers in jail...........

He broke the law.

The law doesn't care about should or shouldn't, only that it must be obeyed.

There's folks in a city in a few counties over, who want a police investigation into a noose, that a man put up on his own property. The folks that are complaining want it investigated as a hate crime.

These folks haven't seen hate crimes, we've still got counties in this state, were people burn crosses and wear white robes and pointy hats.

Yes, the law is pretty clear on this. You don't really have a right to free speech or to be a Knucklehead(in regards to your racial views). If you think this is bad, as concerned to violating his 1st amendment rights, you should really look at what Political Correctness has done in Europe in regards to speech rights concerning criticisms of religion, ethnic groups, gay rights, etc (unless it is about the Romas(gypsies) then you are free to talk and do what you will).
We are pretty much resolved to this being the standard until SCOTUS rules that the minority population has benefited enough(or achieved equality) from the confiscation of the majority's rights. This is also the basis for the quotas and EOCC. The very fact that you HAVE to rent houses, apartments, etc. to anyone that applies even if you find their lifestyle,religion,etc. objectionable violates the very concept of liberty. SCOTUS still doesn't believe that enough time has passed as they ruled on quotas a few years ago, so maybe in 30 years when there is no majority population they will finally be good enough to give us back our full set of freedoms(although government doesn't really make a habit of doing so.)

If Obama wins, I'm opening a web business selling lawn jockeys.

I�m with VA, he broke the law.

It�s intimidation pure and simple. The KKK is always trying to intimidate within the law, it�s their last bastion of protest. This guy just tripped over the law and got caught. He was wrong both legally and morally, enjoy your stay in jail you POS.

So when the klan starts intimidating people with oven mitts, we�ll throw them in jail for that too right?

It�s not the object per say, it�s whether or not it intimidates people.

Next thing ya know they�ll be throwing people in prison for drawing cartoons of Mohammed.

I agree that intimidating people is wrong especially when they do it by dictating what speech or symbols are off limits to the rest of us.

Did any of you guys happen to see the rubber ball sac that you can buy to hang off your rear bumper? Not asking for opinions about "taste"; just want to know if you feel that is intimidating to females or more exactly "feminists"? Was "intent" proven in this guy's case?
We have to be careful about the "slippery slope" effect here. How far will the gov. go into this area of speech?

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

A noose is a long way from an oven mit. You can take it to the extreme, but in this particular case, the intention and the meaning was quite clear; the guy goes to jail.

If in the future someone goes to jail for the oven mitt, then I would imagine that one would be appealed to the Supreme Court to define what is and isn't considered ok.

No doubt that young man should learn to be more considerate of others , just as the black people should learn to GET OVER IT.

My ancesters (all of them) are of Slavic origin. Adolph Hitler did not like the Slavic people any better than he did the Jews. One of my great-aunts was put in a Nazi slave camp in WWII. I don't run to a policeman if I see a swastika.

I do not believe in the idea of "hate crimes" , that is discrimination too. People , any people should stand on their own merits and not hide behind BS laws like that.

BTW KevinGibson , I think it is a bit strong to call that young man a POS , he probably just doesn't have good sense.

Mike

Poor judgement and behavior on his part, but I do not see how that altered their ability to travel. Now if there was a law prohibiting the public display of nooses, then yes.

Can one appeal to a higher court after pleading guilty? With this skimpy report, there may be more going on than listed here.

I live in the South, I see those all the time...tasteless, yet funny (hey, didn't I see something like that on a Hooters t-shirt?)

I agree about the slipery slope, but again, this case was clear as day and the slope was level and secure. If someone is trying to make a freedom of speech arguement, this isn't the case to make it with.

Very good point.

No, If you can express yourself by burning a flag, dancing with snakes at church, playing vulgar rap music out loud, etc, you can hang a noose from your truck. No matter how stupid they all are.

Exactly. He didn't break the law, he met what a judges interpretation of the law is. Since he found him guilty and sentenced him to prison he defacto broke the law.

Was a prison term due? IMO no. Assuming the judge found him guilty he would have been far better off with some sort of community service. Going to prison certainly isn't going to change any racist opinions he has, likely make the worse!

I kind of see a double standard applied. He goes to the slam and Rev. Wright is out walking around. Think he doesn't "intimidate some folks?
I think they were hoping to find someone they could spank and he was dumb enough to "offer" himself up.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

It is indeed a freedom of speech issue. Whether it�s a noose in a truck, a bong hits for Jesus shirt, burning a flag, a cartoon of the religious icon of your choice, or a sports team named after an Indian tribe. The right to express yourself has been taking hits is being limited according to how someone might �feel� about it.

Anybody can be �offended� or claim to be �offended� by damn near anything but the thing is that here is no right to not be offended. Someone earlier said �get over it� and that is what we should all do. Sticks and stones don�t ya know.

Being offended does not deprive you of anything. Having your freedom of expression limited by force of law does.

Pointing to the bad acts of one, to excuse the bad acts of another is wrong. The nosses were intended to intimadate those people, even though they were there trying to intimadate the court who was hearing a crimminal case.

...This case sure seems like a travesty of justice to me! Next thing you know displaying a confederate battle flag will be a federal offense? The nasty Nazi swastika would bring major time I suppose. It's all ridiculous to me. Kinda like criminalizing bad taste. Who will we appoint the grand goblins of such defining legislation? What ever happened to free speech? This political correctness, or thought control is far more dangerous than most acts of poor taste or bigotry it purports to punish.
....Grow up! "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me!"...Such childhood wisdom's are long gone in this day and age of thin skinned pansy people.

Just wait six months. I am sure that Comrade Obama has a long list of loyal "Party Members" all picked out and ready to fill such positions.

Gotta agree with you, Moe. In my part of the USA, it is not at all unusual to see a lariat rope or rifle in the back window of a pickup and that sure does not mean that they are on their way to hang or shoot somebody even though there are plenty around here that need it.

Maybe the black dudes that over-reacted about the noose had reason to be afraid or whatever.

What started this whole thing? A gang of blacks beat up a white kid... it appears the blacks protested (sound famaliar?) when black kids faced judgement. White kids friend protested black protest. Went to jail?

Sucks

g

Geo,

Spot on. A white person got his ass handed to him by a GROUP of scum (scum is word that encompasses all low lifes, regardless of color) and because they are black their convictions are called racist? So they turn around and hang, no pun intended; this idiot for what he does. That is racist!

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

Just guessing that when he plead he never expected jail time.

I would be curious to know how they intended to prove intent if they went to trial. If they could prove it, I have no problem with the prosecutionj.

Every now and then we have an outbreak of little nooses being left in school class rooms. I know for a fact that the intent of these "pranks" is to see the school administration and local police go nuts. And they never diappoint. Much to the amusement of the "perps." There's no racial motive in the action. I'm not saying it's smart, but the kids are old enough to see how silly some of the PC stuff is and take advantage of it shake up "the man."

Your first sale ought to be to BillHilly!

I say NO,either you have freedom of speech and exspresion(non violent)or not! This person [bleep] or not at least has a right to say or display what he feels!

Bob

Quite true these days. The good news is that, according to a recent report, whitey will be the minority by 2041!
I'm probably too old to see it and if I was still here I'd be too old to care but, maybe we should warn all these minorities that pay back is a beech!

Last time I checked, blacks weren't the only ones ever hung by a noose. Matter of fact, they were the minority of people strung up in this country. Whole ordeal is assinine and lends credence that this country is taking it's last swirl in the PC schitter.

"Since he found him guilty and sentenced him to prison he defacto broke the law."

And received a defacto prison sentence... Sometimes it appears a new precedent is the only thing a judge is after. Defacto or otherwise.

Should one do time for this? I vote no. This judge is over the top.

"Munsen was sentenced on the same day that an anti-noose law took effect in Louisiana. The new law makes it a state crime, punishable by up to one year in prison, to try to intimidate someone with a hangman's noose, a Deep South symbol of racial hatred."


"House Bill 726 by Rep. Rickey Hardy, D-Lafayette, will make it a crime for a person to place a hangman's noose, or a picture of one, on another person's property or on public property with "the intent to intimidate." Conviction could bring fines up to $5,000 and up to a year in prison."

"A 37-0 vote in the Senate late Monday, following a 97-0 House vote earlier in the legislative session, sent the measure to Jindal for his signature. His office did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment on the bill, which is modeled after an existing law outlawing cross burning."


nemesis:

As usual, the politicians had their fingers right on the pulse of the people in Louisiana when they voted unanimously for the bill and the Governor signed it into law.

Yeah, right......

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?