Skip to content

2 Comments

  2. Frank Schiavo Frank Schiavo

    On Yahoo news/The Assoicated press news for 9/20/09 it was reported–

    “District Attorney Reed Walters, breaking a long public silence, denied Wednesday that racism was involved. He said he didn’t prosecute the students accused of hanging the nooses because he could find no Louisiana law under which they could be charged. ‘I cannot overemphasize what a villainous act that was. The people that did it should be ashamed of what they unleashed on this town,’ Walters said.”

    Mr. Walters should be ashamed & so should the folks of Jena for electing him– He is wrong. Under the Louisiana Hate crimes law it says– http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78262
    —————————————————————————-

    “Louisiana Revised Statues, Title 14, Section 107.2, Revised– Hate crimes

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to select the victim of the following offenses against person and property because of actual or perceived race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property or because of actual or perceived membership or service in, or employment with, an organization: first or second degree murder; manslaughter; battery; aggravated battery; second degree battery; aggravated assault with a firearm; terrorizing; mingling harmful substances; simple, forcible, or aggravated rape; sexual battery, second degree sexual battery; oral sexual battery; carnal knowledge of a juvenile; indecent behavior with juveniles; molestation of a juvenile; simple, second degree, or aggravated kidnapping; simple or aggravated arson; placing combustible materials; communicating of false information of planned arson; simple or aggravated criminal damage to property; contamination of water supplies; simple or aggravated burglary; criminal trespass; simple, first degree, or armed robbery; purse snatching; extortion; theft; desecration of graves; institutional vandalism; or assault by drive-by shooting.”
    ————————————————————–
    The three young men who hung nooses from the so called “White Tree” in Jena were CLEARLY guilty of– “simple or aggravated criminal damage to property”, “criminal trespass” AND “institutional vandalism.” He choose NOT to prosicute them under the law because, as the law continues–
    —————————————————————
    “B. If the underlying offense named in Subsection A of this Section is a misdemeanor, and the victim of the offense listed in Subsection A of this Section is selected in the manner proscribed by that Subsection, the offender may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. This sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense.

    C. If the underlying offense named in Subsection A of this Section is a felony, and the victim of the offense listed in Subsection A of this Section is selected in the manner proscribed by that Subsection, the offender may be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years, or both. This sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense.”
    ————————————————————
    The boys who commited the act would have gone to jail [ or worse if some of them were over 16 years old or the trespass was considered a felony] their parents would have been fined & they would all have hate crime tags in their criminal records. Now I am just a law librarian and found this law. Why couldn’t the elected DA do this? More importantly, what possed the man to conveen an all white jury to try a black youth in a very small town with a jury pool already loaded/poisoned by this controversy? What judge in his right mind [who either had a bias themselves or WANTED the case thrown out on appeal] allowed this to happen/presided over this trial?

    # Thursday, 20 September 2007

Comments are closed.