The Travesty in Jena

with this case. That's my caveat.

In general, hanging a noose? Not actionable, IMO.

I'm not interested in seeing the cops show up every time someone doesn't like something someone else says or does. Your feelings get hurt? Get over it.

Retaliate with your own symbols or whatever.

The cops should show up only when someone actually does something to someone else, not just insults them or whatever.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to not be offended.

Otherwise, hell, let's throw Code Pink in jail for life, in a cell right next to the Dixie Chicks.

It's not about offense. It is about making threats of violence. There is a huge difference. Hanging a murder weapon from a tree to show your displeasure in a person's behavior crosses the line into threat.

I had a problem once with a man who was a bit crazy, who was under my authority and could not stand being under the authority of a woman. I eventually removed him from his position for general incompetence. He got in my face and told me he was going to come into my office at night and rape me.

I called the police. Should they have ignored me? It was just words, after all. He didn't actually DO anything to me. Should they have told me to take a hike and come back to them when he raped me?

The police should absolutely act on threats. Think about it, Brian; if someone plastered a big sign on your daughter's college campus (I think your daughter is college-age, I forget) that said 'I am going to kill [insert name of your daughter]' would you tell her to get over it and leave the police out of it?

You said you didn't know much about this case. But to fill you in--after months of doing nothing about threats and menacing behavior, when the boys got into a scuffle--which resulted in the white boy getting a bump on the head and a black eye--the DA in the town charged the black boys with ATTEMPTED MURDER.

You think the police should stay out of things--what do you think of attempted murder charges for a schoolyard scuffle?

The noose was just the beginning. In another incident, one of the white kids involved in all of this pulled a gun on some of the black kids; they tackled him and took it away.

The police officer did not charge the white kid who pulled the gun, but charged the black kids with theft for taking the gun away.

And now, one 16-year old has sat in jail for a year for a schoolyard fistfight that occurred a few months later.

This town is screwed up. Republicans needs to condemn the kind of backwards behavior that went on in Jena, not further attack the black kids, as many conservative pundits are doing. The right has GOT to disavow the racists more fully than they have yet been willing to do. Until they can do that, I will have a hard time trusting the GOP as a party.

[To clarify: I know all conservatives are not racists. I just think the party as a whole gives racists way too much room under the tent]

Once physical acts took place, the police certainly should get involved. As to what charging decisions they made, I again don't know enough about this case to respond.

BUT, the main point here: " It is about making threats of violence. There is a huge difference. Hanging a murder weapon from a tree to show your displeasure in a person's behavior crosses the line into threat."

I disagree. Unless you have some psychic ability to read people's minds. People say and do all kinds of objectionable things all the time. The whole concept of "terrorist threats", and the way many jurisdictions apply it, is repulsive to a free society. Ever driven down the road and flipped someone off, or shook your fist at them? Terrorist threat? Same deal. Guys get into fights often, saying things like "I'm gonne kill you!"

Terrorist threat?

Sorry, I don't buy it. I also don't buy hate crime legislation.

The law is supposed to punish *actions* that result in injury, not someone's perceived interpretation of what someone else meant when they said or did something. That's nothing but lame-o mind reading, and is best confined to carnival midways.

As to the pulling of the gun, that's a different issue. That's clearly assault with a deadly weapon, at the least. That's an overt act with a weapon specifically directed at a clearly identifiable victim.

As to the guy who threatend you specifically, or the college sign, that again is a different issue. But at best, it might justify a restraining order. That would be it.

As to the racism of that town's cops, based on what you've written that may well be the case. It sounds like when they did have truly criminal acts take place, they went out of their way to direct action against the Black kids. In which case, the state AG should be getting involved.

But to try to say conservatives are racists because they don't believe in laws that attempt to punish thought instead of actions is one of the reasons liberalism isn't held in very high regard by conservatism. We believe in the Constitution, which as I said earlier doesn't recognize any right to not be offended.

Hate crimes legislation. I want to be clear on that.

However, free speech does not include the right to threaten people. Want to hang up a sign with some Sambo stereotype eating watermelon? THAT is offensive, but is NOT actionable.

But as a civil society, we cannot let people threaten and intimidate people with absolutely no reaction from authorities. Threats are not just offensive, they are used to limit the freedom of others. And that is when law is justified to step in.

It seems that you do agree with me though--you say that you believe the police SHOULD be able to step in in the case of 'specific' threats. I think what I don't understand is how you define a 'specific' threat. Does it have to have a name attached to it? What if there was a sign hung up with the nooses in Jena, saying "We will lynch any black kid who sits under this tree." Is ok since it isn't specific?

What about a noose in an individual's yard? Would they have any recourse? A horse head in their bed?

If the act of threatening is wrong, it's wrong. I don't think you should be able to get away with it because you're good at being subtle.

So: offending people? We're free to do that. Threaten them with violence? NOT covered by the first amendment.

A threat has to be "clear and present". That is the legal wording that justifies action taken in self-defense by the individual, or by the police.

Free speech does INDEED assure the right to make vague threats. The Supreme Court ruled on that in the KKK/Skokie case, and the KKK certainly makes vague (at the least) threats against minorities. So does Aryan Nation, very overt threats against entire races, but they're never prosecuted for that, because it's POLITICAL SPEECH.

If a guy wants to set a burning cross in his own front yard, the most they could nab him on would be violation of ordinances about burning trash.

The "noose in the yard"? You can certainly do it in your own yard worry-free. Someone else's yard? Maybe a trespassing violation.

The horse's head? Cruelty to animals or trespassing.

As to sublety, that's the name of the game, as far as legality, otherwise you're once again doing a Karnack, reading people's minds.

Prosecutor: "That was a THREAT!"

Defendant: "It was a JOKE!"

To be illegal, overt action has to be taken in furtherance of carrying out a threat.

That's the law.

Anyone have real facts on Jena or do you have the hyped up stories that floated to the top of the MSM? However, the recent article by the Christian Science Monitor seems have winnowed through much of the chaff on this.

It seems that there is plenty of "blame" to go around on both sides of the street.

Btw, I NEVER knew until the Jena stories that a hang man's noose was a symbol of anything.