- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2nd Ole Miss student sentenced in noose on statue...
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:50 pm to LesMiles BFF
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:50 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
That's not the reason for the statute is it? Is it there to protect the piece of mind of black people?
I will whole heartedly support laws based on race.
That's a whole different conversation. I'm on the fence as to whether this is something that should or could be prosecuted. There should be (and is) a line drawn between protected expression of racist sentiments and a tangible imminent threat. This one I think probably leans more towards protected expression, but it's unquestionably an attempt to send a racially charged and hateful message.
1
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:51 pm to LesMiles BFF
Yes obviously a generic throat slit is the same as walking up to someone and specifically throat slitting at them while holding an instrument well connected with lynchings. You got me.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:53 pm to lsu2006
quote:
an attempt to send a racially charged and hateful message.
This is the point I'm trying to draw out. It isn't just words that can constitute a threat. We can all agree that pointing a gun at someone can easily be a threat. Other motions can be threats.
I think placing an instrument that (correctly or not) is synonymous with racial violence around the neck of a statue of the first black student at a school well known for racial violence can carry a pretty clear implication.
I don't think this should be prosecuted, but the theme of the message is pretty damn obvious.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:55 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Yes obviously a generic throat slit is the same as walking up to someone and specifically throat slitting at them while holding an instrument well connected with lynchings. You got me.
You added the throat slit as an embellishment of your original hypothetical.
I would say a throat slitting motion in the presence of a rival competitor can only be taken one way (as a direct threat) and we need laws to protect our feelings.
I therefore concluded using my PC brain that people need to be punished and these people include a subset of college students that played football.
Where's the break in my logic?
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:56 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
We can all agree that pointing a gun at someone can easily be a threat.
Well it's also assault with a deadly weapon.
quote:
I don't think this should be prosecuted, but the theme of the message is pretty damn obvious.
For sure. It lacks the imminence and specificity to be worthy of prosecution IMHO.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:56 pm to LesMiles BFF
Again a throat slit in a college football game to a stadium full of people is a completely different scenario than a throat slit to a specific person while holding a symbol of racial violence.
You don't even in the slightest see that these might be different?
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:58 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
can carry a pretty clear implication.
Well there's the rub isn't it.
"Pretty clear"? As in "It's OBVIOUS to me that these boys intend to lynch people"?
How can you be threatened if you don't think there will be actual violence?
Then you get to feelings again. Is the law based on how you felt? Did you feel threatened? Yes? Well lockem up.
No? Then freedom of speech and shite like that.
Hypocrites. All of them.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 4:59 pm to lsu2006
Well this isn't prosecuted under classic assault law so the imminence factor isn't required.
quote:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been enrolling in or attending any public school or public college shall be fined under this title
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:00 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Again a throat slit in a college football game to a stadium full of people is a completely different scenario than a throat slit to a specific person
You haven't watched much football have you? These "throat slits" weren't always to the fans.
quote:
holding a symbol of racial violence.
Well there you go. This isn't really about violence is it?
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:00 pm to LesMiles BFF
You judge it based on a reasonable person, just like the legal system judges tons of other things?
This isn't some SJW standard it has been around for centuries.
This isn't some SJW standard it has been around for centuries.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:01 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
Well there you go. This isn't really about violence is it?
I'm not going to argue this any further. I appreciate that you don't see a threat here. Unfortunately you aren't everyone.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:02 pm to CorporateTiger
I'm talking about imminence in the context of 1st amendment exceptions. As in, an imminent threat of lawless action isn't protected under the 1st amendment. I'm not convinced that law or its application to this scenario is constitutional.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:02 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
You judge it based on a reasonable person
It is truly amazing how much of our justice system is basically up in the air.
It's why I never end up on juries. The lawyers see the reason in me nd dismiss me very early. Their shenanigans don't work on me
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:04 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
I appreciate that you don't see a threat here
I would have to believe that these boys intended to lynch someone somewhere to believe there was an actual threat.
Now, if you believe they were going to kill someone and weren't just being idiots, then who is the reasonable person?
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:05 pm to lsu2006
Well as I've said, I disagree with this law.... well at least as to education. The section dealing with voter intimidation is probably an ok 1st amendment in my opinion.
I remember reading somewhere that this statute doesn't need a showing of an imminent threat. I don't have the reference in front of me though.
I remember reading somewhere that this statute doesn't need a showing of an imminent threat. I don't have the reference in front of me though.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:05 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
How have they racially intimidated students attempting to attend a public university?
You must need some more time to review the multiple reports and videos of BLM protesters in 2015 pushing their racist word in public universities.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:06 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
I remember reading somewhere that this statute doesn't need a showing of an imminent threat
If that's the case then it's 100% horseshite as opposed to the 75% I previously believed it to be.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:06 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
I would have to believe that these boys intended to lynch someone somewhere to believe there was an actual threat.
The point isn't necessarily what these boys thought. I think it is pretty clear these were drunken douches nothing more.
quote:
Now, if you believe they were going to kill someone and weren't just being idiots, then who is the reasonable person?
The point is whether someone, not knowing the perpetrators behind the act and their intentions might perceive it as a threat.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:06 pm to CorporateTiger
The only way they get away with this charge is because of "willful intimidation". Placing a noose on a statue, in my opinion, isn't "intimidating" all black people.
The issue is whether or not black people felt "intimidated" and what would reasonably rise to the level of "intimidation".
I would be with you if they put a noose on the doorstep of an African American frat or sorority. I agree not all threats are verbal.
It's about the mindset of black people. If they're "intimidated" by a noose on a statue, that's their problem.
The issue is whether or not black people felt "intimidated" and what would reasonably rise to the level of "intimidation".
I would be with you if they put a noose on the doorstep of an African American frat or sorority. I agree not all threats are verbal.
It's about the mindset of black people. If they're "intimidated" by a noose on a statue, that's their problem.
Posted on 7/22/16 at 5:09 pm to tuptiger
I disagree since I would say that statute in particular can be seen as a symbol of the black student population as a whole.
Either way, I think you and I are relatively close on this issue in a lot of respects. I just wanted to make it clear that a threat can take many forms... including the use of a noose.
Either way, I think you and I are relatively close on this issue in a lot of respects. I just wanted to make it clear that a threat can take many forms... including the use of a noose.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News