As it regards this case, a Fraternity brother who is a jurist in the area, says that from what he's heard, there will be three Duke lacrosse players in orange jump suits soon. It's full steam ahead on this case by the DA.

Aren't jurors forbidden to discuss anything that pertains to the case. There hasn't even been a trial yet, how would he know that three of them are going to jail. That sounds ridiculous

No, you misunderstood. A jurist is a judge not a juror on a case or a grand jury. And not that they'll be convicted--of course not!--but that they'll be charged. That's all!

Why are jumpsuits orange?

When did they do away with stripes? You know...like the Hamburgler wore. Did they ever even really have stripes?

http://studentweb.providence.edu/~lf...hamburgler.gif

-Rudey

You're bad for business, Wolfman.

DSTS, I disagree. Very few (none that I've seen) black commentators are saying anything like "these guys are innocent until proven guilty," or mentioning the fact that there is no solid evidence against them. In reality, the people going on TV and yelling about racism or how white people just wanna destroy their culture. In doing so, they are hurting the credibility of other black leaders. You can say, "oh thats just your racist viewpoint," but if you awake to reality, thats how the average American will see it. I mean, I know your mind is so open your brain has fallen out, but try and escape from your Berkley mentality long enough to understand how Americans will react. Negatively. As to your comment about people like me being the reason this is a racial issue, you're once again mistaken (I'm noticing a trend). I am only responding to what I've seen from the black community. They made this about race. Before they pulled the race card, the focus was on the possibility of a rape, not on the racial undercurrents that exist in this country.

You hit the nail on the head. I agree totally. The only thing that I have seen from the black community on TV is that they are all outraged that these kids aren't arrested and sitting in a jail cell....regardless if there is a case against them or not.

I fixed my name for you. Thank me later.

The fact that there are SOME black commentators stating "innocent until proven guilty" dismisses your point. Does there need to be a quota system of opinions or something? Moreover, I have seen my fair share of nonblacks assuming guilt in this case, so that's that.

I don't know what you're talking about with "Berkeley mentality" but the accusser and another witness said racial slurs were thrown at them. If that means they played the "race card" (which is one of the DUMBEST terms ever...race isn't a damn card), then...okay. If they are telling the truth, based on your logic, I guess they should've left out that tidbit of information as to not confuse the easily perplexed American public. Last but not least, there was consideration to legally pursue this as a hate crime, as well as a rape case. I guess that means the legal system and the feds have played the "race card."

Well, either you all are going to accept the FACT that the black community isn't a monolithic group or not. Don't confuse what you see on TV with what the "black community feels on an issue."

I certainly don't know what the white community feels on this issue. Because...I'm wise enough to know that there is no ONE white community stance. From the uber feminists who immediately wanted to burn these lacrosse layers at the stake to the uber Conservatives who think a BLACK exotic dancer from an HBCU has no credibility against some white males from a prestigous PWI. Diversity of opinions. :)

Chaos, I actually agree with much of that. The idea of "hate crimes" is so ridiculous it sickens me, and I'm amazed that our legal system has allowed such an obscene law to continue. As to the racial slurs, that may or may not be true, but that doesnt mean we should turn this into a white v. black debate. The fact is, a crime may have happened, and it should be viewed as that, just a crime (which would go back to my idea about hate crimes). Also, as to your point about "some" commentators not assuming guilt, I havent seen any from the black community. The only reason I didnt say all is because I don't assume that I've seen every person speak on the subject. You're also right however, that there are white commentators doing the same. However, there is an equal number of white commentators giving them the benefit of the doubt, while as earlier mentioned, I've yet to see a black commentator do. I also don't think people will judge white commentators as they will black ones, which is not right, but I do believe occurs. In a world with such overwhelming stereotypes, unfortunately black leaders are on trial whenever they enter the public arena.

Hate crime laws are only obscene if the crime isn't motivated by group-specific hate. Some women's rights and rape victims rights activists were/are angered by the fact that this was being approached as a hate crime. Their main argument is that rape is about power regardless of race, sexual orientation, or social class. This would essentially make all rape cases "hate crimes" since women are most often the targets. That's a whole new topic that I won't be discussing any further.

Sorry to break it to you, but the perception of racial impropriety will make a racialized country such as this view such issues with a racial lens. Some people will verbalize it, some people will just THINK it but verbally deny the existence of it, and the remainder will be perfect human beings who don't use socio-demographics to categorize anything. The last category constitutes about <1% of humanity and even this is often based on group position.

Moving on. ;)

Yes, I do realize that that may not be the stance from every black/white person, thats why I said TV. Other than that, I mostly agree with what you responded to me with.

My larger question is: What's the significance of the observations that you and shinerbock are making?

I agree with your stance on how race is viewed. Maybe we should start a thread on the legality and reasoning behind hate crime legislation.

The thing is, even if we ignore the concept of "hate crimes" for a minute, and even if we disregard the allegations of racial slurs, race still is an issue here. In the criminal justice system, race often is an issue one way or another -- it affects everything from police stops to charges to hearings and trials to plea agreements and verdicts to sentencing (at least in my experience). So much of what happens in the criminal arena IS some form of white v. black debate.

In the AKA forum there is a thread on this where they repeatedly bring up race and seem pretty one sided on the issue - not a wait until charges, a trial, and evidence but a "Those white players are guilty" view.

-Rudey

;)

There is a difference between bringing race in as a motive, and having unaffected black leaders use this issue as the beginning of a broad racial debate.

Is there?

I agree.

Worthless scum like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will undoubtedly use this as part of the "race card".

Why shouldn't this begin a broad racial debate? I don't see any problem with that.

I look at it like this -- I would never make any assumptions as to the guilt or innocence of anybody who might be or has been charged with a crime. That's because of my background and experience, from which I've formed my own understanding of criminal justice and racial issues. That understanding is different from yours or that of anybody else in the world. In a different world, or with a different background and experience, my understanding of and reaction to this case would be different as well. As long as the participants respect that we're all coming from different points, discussion and/or debate can serve to increase our understanding of each other and the issues in cases like this, which I think is a good thing.

pros·ti·tute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prst-tt, -tyt)
n.
One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.


strip·per ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strpr)
n.
One that strips, as one that strips photographic negatives or positives.
A chemical product for removing a surface covering, such as paint or varnish, from furniture or floors.
One who performs a striptease.
An oil well that produces ten barrels or fewer per day.

SHE WORKED FOR AN ESCORT AGENCY.

If there is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper, there is nothing wrong with calling her a prostitute. It's a profession. Deal with it already. If she doesn't want people to know she's a prostitute, perhaps she could work at a library and not for an escort agency.

-Rudey
--I put it in caps just to make sure you saw it.

There is nothing wrong with calling her a stripper because that is what 'exotic dancers' do. However, there has not been anything presented that she 'solicits and accepts payment for sex acts'.

A receptionist works for the Escort Agency does that make her a prostitute, too? What about the accountant or attorney, I guess they are prostitutes, too?

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. Note that I refuse to comment anymore on the facts until I know more. But I refuse to let you or anyone else get away with this type of ignorant language.

"8:30 p.m.: The accuser is called by her escort agency and told to report to the Buchanan Boulevard house that night."

You're right. The escort agency sends their receptionists out at 8:30 PM.

What ignorant language? There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute or a stripper in my book.

-Rudey

Well, for example, if I were Tucker Carlson or some other conservative pundit, and I got on TV to fire up racial issues everytime black guys beat up or raped a white woman, I'd be termed a racist. I also wouldnt have time to do very much else.

You'd have even less time to do much else if you were to report everytime white guys beat up or raped a white woman. That happens much more often since:

1) whites comprise a much larger percentage of the general population
2) violent crimes such as rape and assault tend to be intraracial
and
3) these crimes are most often committed by friends, family, and acquaintances. In a racially and class segregated society such as this, people's friends, family members and acquaintances are most often of the same race that they are.

Thanks for participating.

I appreciate your thanks, but your points are not relevant in a discussion of race. There is no white on white battle portrayed constantly in the media. Black on white violent crime is much more common than the opposite, and black people comprise much less of the population. Thanks for trying.

Do you have any statistics to back that statement up?

Is there authority in support of your statements? I'm not being a smartass -- I'm actually curious.

My guess is that there is a lot of white-on-white violence in this country; it just doesn't get media attention.

LOL. Did I not talk about race in my post? The difference is that I talked about intraracial rather than interracial. You only care about the interracial, which makes it humorous that you are shocked at how this Duke case is being discussed in the media.

Nothing's relevant when it contrasts common misconceptions of race and criminality in this country. ;) Racialized sensationalism is always more fun than the truth. People like you would rather go on tangents about people playing the "race card" while, all along, being that which you despise.

To go along with my initial post on this subject matter regarding representation in the general population, not just "a lot" but more of a majority than the media would like for us to believe.

This also speaks to our notions of violence. People think of "street violence" and young Black males. They don't consider other forms of homicide, assault, and family violence that are more perpetuated by white males on other whites. This is because the violence that is disproportionately (meaning, as compared to their representation in the general population) perpetuated by blacks (young males in particular) is most often associated with guns and committed in public places where the acts are more easily detected. This easy detection by law enforcement adds to the increase in arrest rates, which leads to greater public perception of black crime. People begin to fear black-on-white violence when, in fact, black-on-black violence is much more prevalent as is white-on-white violence.

Are you kidding? Sure you talked about race, but white vs. white is not a racial issue. I'm sorry, but I assumed you would realize this. It is hilarious how you continue to blame the "racial" aspect of this situation on people like myself, who merely comment on what they see in the media. I'm not playing the race card, I'm simply showing my displeasure at those who are. You probably will not recognize this, as God forbid a conservative not start an issue that divides the public. The lack of rational thought within our modern politically correct society never ceases to amaze. I give up, I'm sure those rich, well educated white boys raped that black stripper. After all, thats so common.

She's not saying that white v. white is a racial issue -- my understanding is that she's saying there is more white-on-white and black-on-black violence than black-on-white or white-on-black violence, and that the type of violent acts committed by "young Black males" is the type that you hear about in the media. I think she's right, but I haven't researched the issue -- you just don't hear about the white guy who beats his wife on the 10:00 news, though, do you?

End discussion here.

As I told ilikehazing, please refrain from commenting until you become well-read and well-articulated on such subject matters. The media is not your guide to all things true and noble.

What we hear about versus what we do not hear about can be a "racial issue" if our misconceptions are rooted in racialized untruths. The same applies to media and public sensationalism or untruths rooted in social class, sexuality, and gender biases.

Shinerbock doesn't understand and his insistence in discussing an unfounded "racial issue" is comical because he's playing the *cue echo* "racccccccccccceeeeeee...carrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddd dddd." He and ilikehazing are that which they despise.

In the alternative (and I'm only bothering because I'm a huggy liberal who wants us all to just get along and understand each other OH TEH LOVE), recognize that if your views of race/crime/violence/justice are based only on what you've seen/heard/read in the media, they are inherently limited. There is a whole world of shit that happens that you never hear about on the news, ever. Relying on the media to develop a knowledge of these issues is like relying on American Idol to develop a knowledge of music.

But...but...Paula Abdul taught me how to sing. :(

Holy crap. I'm relying on what I see/hear in the media, because thats where black commentators are making their statements. Maybe I should go to more grassroots sources like drudge report, but I don't think that changes the issue at hand. Perhaps I should look to message boards, and Chaos, you can be my source, since you've proven so reliable and rational thus far. Also, I don't think you can really compare some trailer trash domestic dispute to black people killing white people, or raping white women, but whatever. I'm sure this sounds like I'm preaching against black people, but I'm really not. The majority are having their culture's image hurt by the idiots in this situation. However, that does not change the fact that based on percentage, they are much more likely to commit violent crime. Also, I'm getting kinda drunk, so in your response if you could do it on a point by point (simplified) basis, that would make it easier for me to respond. Thanks.

:( We already established that. Next topic.