Talk:Jena Six/Legal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] court transcript

....from the first trial. Where is it? It's a matter of public record. Could a Jena Wikipedian (no lols intended) go to the courthouse, copy it, and scan it? 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's available online, I don't think we could use it. The info has to be verifiable. Ophois 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It is verifiable, at the courthouse. That's why I'm asking someone to verify it. There's no policy that sources have to be online. Dsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsol (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)




I live in Alexandria and our local paper printed a few excerpts from the court transcript and police investigation. One of the defendents (they did not identify which one) was asked about his comments immediately after the assault. Most of the defendants were scared afterwards, but one was heard to say, "Don't worry, they won't be too [s] harsh on us. We'll just make up some shit about the white boy keep calling us nigger." We ['ll] just say they are racist."

I'm going to go back and look at other papers for that week to see if anything else from the court or police was printed. By the way, I had this part in the wrong area before moving it to this "court transcript" part of the discussion.

[edit] Eyewitness Testimony: what was it?

Local police reported that the accounts of the white student and black students contradicted each other and formed a report based on testimony taken from eyewitnesses. This resulted in Bailey being charged with three counts: theft of a firearm, second-degree robbery and disturbing the peace. The white student who had produced the weapon was not charged.[1][3]"

I am concerned about the integrity of this part of the article because there is no example of the eyewitness testimony. I feel that without an example, the simple connecting sentence is easily ignored so people jump to one conclusion: racism. Though it may have been due to racism, there may also have been valuable eyewitness testimony that resulted in Bailey being charged for 3 crimes and the white student being charged with nothing. If there is any source where we could pull that information from, it would be pivotal.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A reference to the witness testimonies are later in the article, but to my knowledge, they haven't released any testimonies. It's only been said that they were conflicting, including some who don't even remember Bell being involved. Ophois 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All white jury

The issue of the all white jury should be discussed in the article. Here is a quote from an ABC article,

"The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3641855&page=2.)

There has been contempt over the fact that the jury was all white, the above quote should alleviate some of these concerns of injustice, particularly due process concerns, by revealing that the all white jury was not a result of bias but of a fair jury selection process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerrickS123 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That fact is already in the article. Ophois 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Attorney Donald Washington

I was wondering what U.S. Attorney Donald Washington's race, and the fact that he was appointed by Bush, had to do with this article? In my view it lends no credence to his opinion/qualification as an attorney, and is therefore irrelevant and should not be included. (Allegedly 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Please read discussion on this page to see how the consensus grew that this should be in there. Basically a compromise.--Wehwalt 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree. If Washington had a more central role in the case, specifically if there were suspicion of his motivation central to the Jena 6 case, then these details would be important (and should be elaborated upon). Washington's office is not under suspicion with regards to the Jena 6 (as Walters IS), and so the inclusion of his race and connection to Bush are superfluous and irrelevant.(Allegedly 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
Okay now it just says that he's an African American, but nothing about him being appointed by Bush. If we're going to mention his race his political affiliations are at least (if not more) relevant. I'm inclined to include neither his race nor who appointed him, I think it's just confusing, but if people don't like that we ought to include both. futurebird 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit removing mention of his race, futurebird, simply because the article and the controversy are race-related. I have no objection to including the fact that he is a Bush appointee.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Typing_monkey. I still think it's cluttered, but at least it is balenced now. People can make what they wish out of the information. futurebird 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population ratio and jury

In regards to this edit [1] by Ophois.

The MTV article mentions the population ratio in Jena for a reason. The fact that "no black jurors showed up" would be remarkable if there were a lot of black jurors who were called, that is if there were the same number of white and black jurors called. However, it probably wasn't a large number of people 9:1 so that fact that "no black jurors showed up" is more likely an artifact of chance rather than a refection of the willingness of people in the black community to serve on a jury as the current text of our article now implies... This information is soured and relevant. It should stay in. futurebird 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. The number of African Americans called for jury duty was actually very small. Qworty 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a six member jury anyway, in a parish which is close to 90 percent white. Might have come out that way anyway.--Wehwalt 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
True enough. futurebird 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also a little curious about facts like 'one of the seated jurors was a friend of the victims father'. The whole parish is only 14,282 people counting every man, woman, and child. The newsreporting to me sounds kind of biased in making it seem like the deck was stacked against Bell in that regard when in truth in a community that small it would have been almost impossible not to draw some connection within 1 or 2 degrees of seperation. I honestly do believe some of the events were biased against Bell (particularly charging him as an adult when the law clearly said that could not be done and the releveant factors the DA considered weren't considered relevant in prior LA SC decisions), but I think their is a reason you're not seeing that fact harped on... even the pro-Bell supporters realise it's probably more fluke then noteworthy. It just looks to me like people trying to make a statistic look like a fact, when if you put it into a broader picture, it's nothing signifigant. I'd wager on most jurys in the Parish, white or black accused, one of the jurors can be traced in some way back to the victim, and I doubt at MOST you'd need even a 3 people seperation to link it. Again, only 14,282 people total.
I removed it earlier because it doesn't really fit in with the section. If it is included in the article, it should be mentioned in the Bell Trial section when it talks about the jury. Ophois 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be mentioned in this paragraph to give context to the phrase about "black jurors not showing up" --That's how it appears in the MTV article and for the same reasons. futurebird 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The MTV article isn't related to Whitlock. Anyways, I've moved it to the trial section to serve the same purpose as you intended.Ophois 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem counting MTV News as a legitimate source against some of the real news powers at play here. To me that's about on par with using the Jena Times or whatever that local paper was, it just isn't a credible enough source vs. some of the other sources at play here. MTV is an entertainment network and hardly an unbiased one, if you could find some other source I think that would speak more for the issue. If it's the only source you can find for something and the other major news sources don't address it I have to question it's validity. The AP and major news sources don't address it, but MTV does? At the least, that's just odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.190.45 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
MTV relies heavily on the AP article which first discloses that there were two nooses rather than three. Maybe use that instead, but include MTV as having relied on AP in issuing a retraction?--Wehwalt 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If MTV is sourcing the AP, then the MTV article should not even be included. The AP one should be used. I'm struggling to see anything MTV could add except bias or personal opinion to what they took from the AP. Stick with the AP.

I'm not understanding your argument. MTV used other news sources for the info in their articles. Now, with the AP articles out, they see they're wrong and issued a retraction. So why exactly should the MTV's retraction be replaced by an AP article...? Ophois 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assault with a Deadly Shoe argument

The author of the shoe paragraph obviously thinks the shoe stuff is ridiculous, but the jury did not. Does anyone have any insight as to why one teen's shoes were considered deadly weapons, while, for instance, the other shoes were not? Kicking people unconscious, sadly, happens every day... hasn't this argument then been used before, if not daily, somewhere in America? Can we find a source to explain what's going on? I have to assume one kid had heelies, or steel toed boots, or something... --Mrcolj 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you seen Austin powers? That movie sets a strong legal precedent in cases such as these. Dsol 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think most people think the argument is ridiculous. It's being presented in the media as a tactic by the prosecution to increase the severity of the charges. Remember, the aggravated assault charge was a drop down from attempted murder 2. I'm sure the tactic has been tried before several times, just not in the public spotlight. There are a few other things to remember. First up the defense attorney was a public defender who's competence has already been questioned. It's possible that he never filed an objection to the characterization of the shoes as deadly weapons. Secondly, the jury was probably predisposed to convict and that's even before you bring race into the mix. I'm sure we'll see some analysis of this case by professional law journals or in the media. It just will take time and effort to find it.CJ 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The shoe argument has only been made against Bell because he's the only one that's been tried yet. Anyways, I looked it up, and according to the Supreme Court, anything can be a deadly object (including a foot), so I added it to the artcle. Thanks for pointing that out. Ophois 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The law in Louisianna defines a "Dangerous (not deadly) weapon" to "include[s] any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." LA. R.S. 14:2(A)(3).

Under this definition, anything that can be used in a manner likely to cause "death or great bodily harm" can qualify as a "dangerous weapon." This can include hands, feet, shoes, guns, knives, cars, ect. Really, a lot of things that don't normally consitute a weapon can be used as a dangerous weapon - given the right set of facts.

Nevertheless, it's a no-brainer that kicking somebody in the head, regardless of the style of footwear, could likely cause thier death or great bodily harm. The prosecution could have alleged "foot" as the dangerous weapon. So the nature of the shoes worn may be such that they were capable of causing more injury than an uncovered foot.

BTW - It is perfectly acceptable, and generally the usual course of practice, (regardless of the race of an offender), for the prosecution to allege the highest level of offense committed under the facts and then to later agree to a lesser charge. My experience has been that this is typically done with the approval of the victim and/or his family.

Six people kicking someone laying defenseless on the ground into unconsciousness is a real crime. It is ridiculous to attempt to equate a potentially deadly assault by multiple attackers on a single unarmed victim to hanging rope from a tree branch. Or to claim that the attack was justified because some other persons hung the rope in the tree the day before. Particularly where your article says the victim was attacked because he taunted one of the attackers, not because he personally hung a rope from a tree. Mwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.24.194 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please find a source for the above info about deadly weapons in Louisiana and replace the part about the Colorado Supreme Court? If not, I can do it later. Ophois 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Despite the overturning of the convictions

An editor insists on prefacing the third paragraph of the intro with the above words, so that it reads:

Despite the overturning of the convictions, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has stated there is no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. Washington has indicated that he does not think there is a link between the nooses incident and the beating.

It is a matter of opinion (presumably Qworty's) whether the overturning of the convictions (on the grounds that the defendant should have been tried as a juvenile, not an adult) constitutes "evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing." An editor should not insert his opinion to rebut the facts that we are attempting to present in an article. It is inherently POV and unfair. We should delete the introductory phrase. Other views?--Justin Sloan Wehwalt 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If he was tried as an adult when he was supposed to be tried as a juvenile, then yes, that is considered unfair.Ophois 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, appeal courts reverse all the time because trial judges are imperfect. That doesn't mean that the defendants are treated unfairly, just that a judge got it wrong. In this case, according to the sources, it is a question as to whether conspiracy to commit a violent crime is itself a violent crime permitting a 16 year old to be tried as an adult.--Wehwalt 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it just the trial judge who was wrong? Walters was the one who prosecuted on those charges. Ophois 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. In any issue at law, one side is generally wrong. In cases which are reversed, it tends to be the prosecutor. But anyway, I think the new phrasing satisfies my concerns.--Wehwalt 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(comment by another editor, to which wehwalt replied, was deleted here)

I've known many judges and prosecutors in my time to be wrong. I've known very few to be unfair. There's a big difference.--Wehwalt 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Even they were "wrong", it was still unfair to Bell. Like in a game, if a referee makes a bad call by mistake, it's still unfair to the team who suffers because of it, whether it was intentional or not.Ophois 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And I've always known that as long as I've had one hundred checks sitting in my checkbook I could go out and find 100 lawyers who disagreed with any other lawyer on any matter at all. Qworty 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how the appeals work out. If you took the second-level decision in Brown v. Board of Ed as definitive, you'd say how wrongheaded the plaintiffs were, after all, they lost in the first appeals court. Roe v. Wade lost in the second highest court, you know. The case is not final.--Wehwalt 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. And as it stands now, Washington is wrong. If the courts ever say he's right, I'll make the edit here myself. BTW, I just love it how people like you assert that I "have an opinion." What it the world do you think it is you have??? I guess the letters on your keyboard just keep getting pressed by accident. Qworty 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And I must say that I had no reason to believe you were a lawyer until I saw you arguing on here for an hour about the inclusion of a single word. LOL! Qworty 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, with respect, you've reverted about a dozen edits to keep that one little word in there. If it is one little word, how about we just get rid of it, OK? After all, there is only one, and it is little. No problem, right?--Wehwalt 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your "compromise" edits aren't bad. Unfortunately, if we both walk away from the computer at this point, we'll come back in an hour or in the morning to find the intro paragraph largely unrecognizable. And two other people will be here arguing similar points. Qworty 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. At this point, it is like we are writing on the sand with the tide coming in. Maybe we can think of a way that will satisfy you that doesn't carry an implication that anyone is right or wrong, which as it stands is rather undetermined.--Wehwalt 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I have a specific point and a general point about the Washington issue. First, we seem to have lost track of the ref for Washington saying there's no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. It isn't ref #1 as is given in the article now. I could hunt the right ref down myself, but those of you more familiar with this article will be able to do so faster. Second, in my opinion, the three of you are reading too much into Washington's "prosecution or sentencing" statement. If I remember right, it wasn't given as a quote, but rather a reporter's interpretation. And even if it was a quote we wouldn't be able to tell exactly what he meant by it. He might have been speaking within the context of the Jena 6 cases; he might not have meant to address the fairness or unfairness of the lack of prosecution or harsh sentencing with respect to white youths involved. And he certainly wasn't addressing the fairness or unfairness of arrests made or not made, because arrests are neither prosecution nor sentencing. My suggestion, which I've made before on other grounds, is that the "no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing" point be moved from the intro to somewhere else in the article, such as the "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings" section. --Allen 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the quote a couple of days ago when this thread began. It was a quote, it was a narrow quote, and it applied specificially to the one case prosecuted and not to the overall justice situation in Jena. Rklawton 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Allen. I've never understood what the Washington quote is doing in the introduction. Shall we eliminate it? Qworty 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Does it more appropriatly belongs somewhere else within the article? I'd consider that before going to deleting it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.136.84 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to have a balance. You can have the Washington quote, or something fulfilling a similar function, AND the protesters' concerns in the intro, or you can have neither. Having just one of those is pov. People need to know that there are multiple points of view on what is going on, and if you have only one point of view in the intro, well, for many, that is as far as they read.--Wehwalt 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
So why don't we find a quote that isn't as problematic as Washington's? Qworty 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, so that we don't run into another long debate, I hope, tell me what is problematic about it?--Wehwalt 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot that's problematic about it. For one thing, he's only one guy, as opposed to the thousands of people who showed up to protest against him and the system he represents. For another, as already extensively discussed, a higher court came to a conclusion that was the opposite of his. A court decision has the force of law; the opinion of a government lawyer doesn't. The fact that he's a lawyer doesn't mean anything, because I can go out and find another 500 lawyers that don't agree with him. Of course, maybe you could go out and find some assertions that, unlike his, haven't yet been tested by the courts. I'm sure there are plenty to be found on KKK websites, Skinhead sites, other white-supremacy websites, etc. Then the article intro will have "both" POVs and be "balanced." In other words, this whole thing is a false dichotomy, but if you insist on dichotomizing, let's really get it out there and dichotomize, dichotomize, dichotomize. I think the intro should say something about the fact that some white people just don't like black people, no matter what. We can find plenty of examples of this attitude that would shore up the "other" side of the debate, right? Qworty 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The man is the person responsible for federal law enforcement in the district where Jena is. He has stated his conclusion. It is possible he is wrong, I have no idea. WP does not judge. He may be right, he may be wrong, but WP would be the poorer if we emphasised one point of view over another in the manner you suggest.--Wehwalt 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying one POV should be emphasized over another. I'm agreeing with you, for the time being, that "both" POVs should be represented. By all means go out and find some KKK quotes that, unlike Washington's quote, haven't yet been debunked by the courts, and include those in the intro. Then we'll have "both" sides. Qworty 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Washington's quote is in response to allegations of the charges being because of their skin color etc. I think it's only controversial to some because it doesn't fit their way of thinking with regards to the case. We had it framed correctly before when it succeeded the "black community" leaders sentence where their feelings were heard. It's also arguable whether or not the charges can be considered unfair because of an appeals court decision. I say this because it's the job of the prosecutor to follow the laws and the appeals court to interpret them in individual cases. Ask any lawyer who hasn't heard about this case and they would probably concur with Walters that Bell should have been tried as an adult. Share details about the attention paid to the case and it's not so wrong to think the overturning was a concessionJim 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
I'd agree, at least on the Washington quote. Look, this guy headed an investigation into this matter, sent FBI agents and others in there. It is hard to think of someone who would know more about this case than him. You may not like that he is a Bush appointee, but he is the responsible Federal official, and a quote from him is perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right, like government lawyers and the FBI never get anything wrong. A high court has already ruled that Washington got it wrong. Why do you, as an attorney, insist on sticking material into this article that has already been ruled false by the courts? That hardly makes for balanced POV! Qworty 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is Mychal Bell is sitting in whatever jail serves the Lasalle Parish waiting for the same charges to be filed (this time as a juvenile)Jim 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is he'd be walking the streets right now if he were white. Qworty 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You've failed horribly trying to prove this. It's bad enough you've turned it into a discussion board topic with this post. Mychal Bell is in jail for a reason, and it has nothing to do with skin color. As noted in this article, he is accused of kicking the shit out of another kid(along with 5 others). Some people can't accept the fact that 6 minorities acted in an immature manner and are being punished for it. Oh yes, that's right: there's been several cases where whites have done the same thing and have gotten off. Proof? burden of proofburden of proofburden of proof. Please. Donald Washington's quote is relevant because he led an investigation into what happened. You fail miserably at understanding the context of it also.Jim 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (addendum: this not even considering why appeals courts exist!)
That's an interesting speculation. Is there any evidence that this is true? Is there a record in Jena of a group of white kids stomping some black kid into unconsciousness in the last ten or twenty years who then got to walk free? Such an instance would be quite interesting to add to the article for comparison. Do you suppose one of those activists might have entirely overlooked this possibility? Rklawton 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not speculation at all, but rock-solid fact. Oh yes, indeed, there are many whites in Jena who are walking around free after having beaten blacks. By all means read the news stories about them and become educated and informed on the issues. At the very least, Bell would've been out on bail by now if he were white. Qworty 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you'd post links, I'd appreciate it. I've read a lot of the sources used in this article, but I don't recall anything other than vague claims that whites would be treated differently. Adding a real-life example to the article would provide an excellent illustration of the disparity claimed by the activists. Rklawton 01:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The links have been up there for days. By all means go through them and read them. There were many whites in Jena who beat up black people, but none of the whites was charged with attempted murder. And this is also the case nationwide. Qworty 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So you can't find them either? I didn't see any that pointed to a specific case. I don't doubt, however, that what you say is true. I've heard that the federal "hate-crimes" legislation passed by Congress years ago has been used disproportionately against blacks. Rklawton 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, gee, the Justin Sloan example is sitting right there in the article. If you don't believe it belongs there, by all means try to have it removed. If you're still having trouble reading it, I can repaste it for you here... Qworty 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sloan was charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced. Yes, he's not in jail, but no, his victim wasn't hospitalized. And it was one attacker against a group of victims rather than the other way around. No, I'm looking for something more along the lines of a black victim beaten senseless by a group of white teenagers - you know, something more comparable. Rklawton 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sloan wasn't charged with attempted murder. He was charged with battery. The charges in the Jena 6 case have been reduced from the incorrect attempted murder charge to the correct charge of battery. So the charges are comparable, except for the fact that six blacks initially were incorrectly overcharged with attempted murder. Of course, these are only the facts, and just to keep us on topic here, I see that they are presented accurately in the article. Qworty 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
And, I might add, the problem is not at all limited to Jena, as you incorrectly state, but is a national one. Qworty 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
He didn't say that they'd walk free. He said that Bell would be out by now. Bell was a juvenile, and should have been charged in juvenile court. And they were allegedly involved. There have been conflicting testimonies. Ophois 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we dispense with the argument. Quorty has made his position, and his adherence to his position, clear. If we listened to Quorty, this is how the article would open:

The Jena Six are six innocent black teenagers falsely accused by the Ku Klux Klan-appointed prosecutor in Jena, Louisiana. The nation has lifted up its voices with a roar to ensure these selfless boys are freed and the youths who hung nooses from trees have their lives ruined forever. Uncle Tom U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, an appointee of the evil Bush administration, and who was born black but isn't anymore, was disgraced by a court recently, and will soon be disbarred, arrested, and made to occupy the former cell of one of the Jena Six.

--Wehwalt 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think you're verging on violating WP:NPA here. Clearly that is not how Quorty would write the opening paragraph. Putting words in people's mouths is bad enough, but your version of Quorty's paragraph is a little bit racist, which is what really puts it over the line. --Allen 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(just to clarify what I just said, which I realize could be misinterpreted, I don't mean that you putting the words in Quorty's mouth is a racist act, but rather that the paragraph itself is a little bit racist because of the "born black but isn't anymore", so I'm saying you're sort of indirectly accusing Quorty of being racist. I'm not saying you or anyone is racist.) --Allen 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Understood. It was intended as satire. I'm not accusing Quorty of anything except poor editing, just extending his arguments and edits to the logical conclusion. I've had a day with him!--Wehwalt 12:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of neutrality, It needs to be reiterated that Donald Washington is a Bush appointee and would not have been selected by Bush to be a US Attorney (anyone here know about the US attorney scandal?) if he were not biased in a way that suits the Bush administration's agenda which has been, in part, to undermine Civil Rights law enforcement and procecution. Including a quote from Washington, in the introduction or anywhere else, without this caveat/fact, is not being neutral or informative to the subject or to the reader. Neutrality does not mean that the article does not present points of view. Explaining the opposing points of view on the case is essential to explaining the issue of the "Jena 6." This article just needs to be BALANCED in presenting not only the facts but the different interpretations of the facts, and the context in which this is all happening. The point of the article should be to present the reader with enough relevant information to make their own assessment of the case. That includes a description of the dominant opinions on both sides of the issues. It seems to me that in its current form this article is not very balanced. The article as it stands now seems systematically dismissive of the side that is arguing that the noose incident was improperly handled and the charges were excessive and racially discriminatory.````

I agree. I moved it from the noose incident to the intro.Ophois 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, and let us discuss on this point (and perhaps open a new section for simplicity's sake). If you put his Bush appointee status in the intro, you are saying that is hugely relevant to the article. That carries an implication that he is biased against blacks, self hating, I think the phrase is (or, as I stated above, an Uncle Tom). ALL U.S. attorneys are Bush appointees, just like under Clinton (who fired all U.S. attorneys on January 20, 1993) they were all his appointees. By drawing attention to his status in such a prominent place in the article, you are implying something. We're not here to imply things.--Wehwalt 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)