Al Sharpton says He will not apologize!

[LegalChef]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

1) Sharpton played on the community, toying with people's emotions early on. Doesn't it bother you that people were protesting and angry with these boys, and that they were on the side of the "victim" just because she was black?

2) There is no substantial evidence that any of these boys racially insulted, demeaned, or ridiculed the stripper

3) There is actually scant evidence that there were racist overtones at all. The testimony of the other stripper should be heavily questioned, considering her inability to be truthful throughout the process. The best argument that these boys were racist is that they asked for at least one white stripper, but in my mind that doesn't indicate racism at all. A lot of white guys aren't attracted to black women, so if its their buck, they should get something that fits the uh...purpose.

4) As for the Imus-Al Sharpton comparison, you're right, there isn't one. Al Sharpton has done far more damage to racial relations in this country than Imus could possibly dream of. Crown Heights, anyone? The Duke situation is fairly typical, he comes into a volatile situation, stirs up anger and dissent, and then disappears and leaves a broken community to sort it out on their own. I don't blame him for everything that happened with the Duke situation, but he certainly doesn't help promote peace or understanding within communities.

OK, Al Sharpton did not go to Durham to play on anyone's emotions, he went down there to ensure that justice would be done on behalf of the alleged victim. The media had been "trying" the victim from the very beginning of the case as if she was the one who had been accused of a crime. He went down there to defend her in the face of all the accusations being thrown her way. That's all. He didn't go down there to villify anybody or stir anything up. It was already stirred up when he got there. Durham has had long-standing racial tension among its citizens. There were a lot of factors that played into people thinking that the lacrosse players were guilty, such as their less than stellar reputation on campus. There were black and white people who believed they were guilty.

For the record, the other stripper never testified to anything (the case never got to court). Furthermore, a neighbor backs up the claim about the racial remarks. Why aren't more people mad at the DA though? Why is Al your point of focus? When he found out that the DA had prosecuted this case without regard to evidence or ethics, he said on his radio show that the lacrosse players had a case against him. But that's not what you want to hear is it?

What I want to know is how is Al a racist? What have you actually heard or read (in quotation) that he said that was racist?

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by LegalChef

OK, Al Sharpton did not go to Durham to play on anyone's emotions, he went down there to ensure that justice would be done on behalf of the alleged victim. The media had been "trying" the victim from the very beginning of the case as if she was the one who had been accused of a crime. He went down there to defend her in the face of all the accusations being thrown her way. That's all. He didn't go down there to villify anybody or stir anything up. It was already stirred up when he got there. Durham has had long-standing racial tension among its citizens. There were a lot of factors that played into people thinking that the lacrosse players were guilty, such as their less than stellar reputation on campus. There were black and white people who believed they were guilty.

For the record, the other stripper never testified to anything (the case never got to court). Furthermore, a neighbor backs up the claim about the racial remarks. Why aren't more people mad at the DA though? Why is Al your point of focus? When he found out that the DA had prosecuted this case without regard to evidence or ethics, he said on his radio show that the lacrosse players had a case against him. But that's not what you want to hear is it?

What I want to know is how is Al a racist? What have you actually heard or read (in quotation) that he said that was racist?

Do some research. It's not hard to find. Did you catch the Hannity vs. Sharpton debate the other day? Hannity had a huge list of verified statements that Al Sharpton made that are incredibly racist and some that were very anti-Semitic.

Here are a couple I found with ease.....

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Accusations_of_racism_and_homophobia
Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires … We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton defended his comments by noting that the term “homo” was not homophobic but added that he no longer uses the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Shar...n_Heights_Riot
A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting “Kill the Jew.” Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” and referring to Jews as “diamond merchants.”

I also liked his famous "Jewing the numbers" rant concerning politics in South Carolina.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by LegalChef

OK, Al Sharpton did not go to Durham to play on anyone's emotions, he went down there to ensure that justice would be done on behalf of the alleged victim. The media had been "trying" the victim from the very beginning of the case as if she was the one who had been accused of a crime. He went down there to defend her in the face of all the accusations being thrown her way. That's all. He didn't go down there to villify anybody or stir anything up. It was already stirred up when he got there. Durham has had long-standing racial tension among its citizens. There were a lot of factors that played into people thinking that the lacrosse players were guilty, such as their less than stellar reputation on campus. There were black and white people who believed they were guilty.

For the record, the other stripper never testified to anything (the case never got to court). Furthermore, a neighbor backs up the claim about the racial remarks. Why aren't more people mad at the DA though? Why is Al your point of focus? When he found out that the DA had prosecuted this case without regard to evidence or ethics, he said on his radio show that the lacrosse players had a case against him. But that's not what you want to hear is it?

What I want to know is how is Al a racist? What have you actually heard or read (in quotation) that he said that was racist?

I've been in the library for what seems like a solid week, so I'm getting in kinda late on this.

Your defense of Al Sharpton is entirely based on your interpretation. Given that you obviously have a significant bias regarding this situation, I think its pretty unreasonable for you to expect us to accept your assertions as factual. What I saw was him going into a hostile situation, stirring emotions, uniting the black community against these boys, and then leaving. Those are obviously only my interpretations, but I think they're easily as valid as yours.

As for the reputation of the Duke lacrosse team, thats a pretty low and petty blow. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the situation, unless you're implying that it is alright to rush to judgment, simply because someone, according to some people, may have a bad reputation.

Thanks for correcting me regarding the other stripper. I was referring to what she told the police. Since we're being so amicable, the word you were searching for in your reply was "vilify".

Al Sharpton isn't my target, I don't really have one. I've repeatedly said that I don't really care if he apologizes or not. However, the title of this thread does include "Al Sharpton" and is noticeably devoid of "Nifong"...

I'm don't know (at least I can't quote) any racist comments of Sharpton. Browsing the thread since your reply, it seems like perhaps a few have arisen. I've heard of such in passing, by my assertions are that Sharpton takes an active role in creating volatile situations within communities and often leaves them without reconciliation. I don't know that Sharpton is racist. I think he has some underlying anger towards the white community and tends to side with the black community during divisive situations, but I'm not sure that makes him a racist. However, I do think he uses racial issues to divide the country, and I personally see little value in him doing so.

[LegalChef]

shinerbock:
Since you've come back into the conversation kinda late, why don't you take the time to actually read the posts for comprehension before you reply to me? I can see that you didn't read the part about Sharpton saying on-air that the DA was completely inethical and the players had a good case against him. Well now I've restated it, so you don't have to search. You're welcome.

Contrary to your own beliefs, everything that I posted about why Sharpton went to Durham can be substantiated. He's been interviewed on TV and in print several times about it. Check the Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, for example. The racial tensions that I mentioned have been referred to ad nauseum by countless TV/print reports on this situation. You can actually Google the phrase 'racial tensions in Durham' and find some of the examples I'm talking about. Or you can look it up on the ever-popular Wiki. It goes back decades. These are not my interpretations, these are facts. You've already admitted that the controversey was there before Al was, so I won't bother to provide a source to back that fact up.

As I've already inferred, the reputation of the lacrosse team doesn't warrant those three guys going to jail for something they didn't do. But the strippers didn't make up that reputation, the players did with their bad behavior and foolish antics. The president of Duke even made references to their reputation himself. Maybe they will take this opportunity to learn how to treat people with decency and respect. Or maybe not.

I question the focus on Sharpton, because there is no thread on here about DA Nifong. Why is that? He's the one who actually behaved without any regard for ethics or the law. All this aggression should be directed at him. That is my interpretation.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by LegalChef

shinerbock:
Since you've come back into the conversation kinda late, why don't you take the time to actually read the posts for comprehension before you reply to me? I can see that you didn't read the part about Sharpton saying on-air that the DA was completely inethical and the players had a good case against him. Well now I've restated it, so you don't have to search. You're welcome.

Contrary to your own beliefs, everything that I posted about why Sharpton went to Durham can be substantiated. He's been interviewed on TV and in print several times about it. Check the Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, for example. The racial tensions that I mentioned have been referred to ad nauseum by countless TV/print reports on this situation. You can actually Google the phrase 'racial tensions in Durham' and find some of the examples I'm talking about. Or you can look it up on the ever-popular Wiki. It goes back decades. These are not my interpretations, these are facts. You've already admitted that the controversey was there before Al was, so uI won't bother to provide a source to back that fact up.

As I've already inferred, the reputation of the lacrosse team doesn't warrant those three guys going to jail for something they didn't do. But the strippers didn't make up that reputation, the players did with their bad behavior and foolish antics. The president of Duke even made references to their reputation himself. Maybe they will take this opportunity to learn how to treat people with decency and respect. Or maybe not.

I question the focus on Sharpton, because there is no thread on here about DA Nifong. Why is that? He's the one who actually behaved without any regard for ethics or the law. All this aggression should be directed at him. That is my interpretation.

All this aggression should be first directed at the accuser, if we actually believe these boys are innocent.

I read your post, directed at me, which should be sufficient to stand as a basis for my reply. I don't question that racial tension exists in Durham. I question your interpretation that Al Sharpton went down to Durham seeking justice. Simply because he says that is what he accomplished there, doesn't mean his (or your) assertions are in accord with the facts.

Of course the controversy was there prior to him arriving. One can obviously stir and further play on people's emotions during an existing crisis. The fact that there was existing racial tension furthers my concern regarding the way he approached the situation. If racial tension already existed, how is he helping the community by supporting one side over the other, especially without any rational basis for doing so?

Lets suppose that he went to Durham with the intention of ensuring justice on behalf of the accuser. Why would he feel the need to do so? We've established that the city had existing racial tension, but was there any indication that this woman was receiving unfair treatment? Was the legal process too slow for Sharpton? If it was too slow, perhaps that was quite justified, considering what we've learned as the situation proceeded. Even if his intentions were lofty as he proclaims, his conduct was still questionable, in my opinion. First, operating under our previous (and rather optimistic) assumptions, he determined that the risk of injustice was so great in Durham that it required his presence. Second, despite very little evidence, he immediately sided with the accuser. Why would he do so? Quite obviously, because she was a black woman in an area he deemed incapable of adequately providing justice for a minority. Third, he proceeded to rally the black community in the area, pitching them against the school and these boys, spreading further the crevasse already existing within the city.


As for the boys learning to respect others, I think its pretty ridiculous to paint an entire athletic organization with such a broad brush. We have little, if any, indication that these boys in particular did anything inappropriate.

You're obviously welcome to start a Nifong thread if you so choose. However, I really haven't heard anyone defending his conduct, so I doubt it would be as interesting.

[LegalChef]

shinerbock:
"All this aggression should be first directed at the accuser, if we actually believe these boys are innocent.

I read your post, directed at me, which should be sufficient to stand as a basis for my reply. I don't question that racial tension exists in Durham. I question your interpretation that Al Sharpton went down to Durham seeking justice. Simply because he says that is what he accomplished there, doesn't mean his (or your) assertions are in accord with the facts.

Of course the controversy was there prior to him arriving. One can obviously stir and further play on people's emotions during an existing crisis. The fact that there was existing racial tension furthers my concern regarding the way he approached the situation. If racial tension already existed, how is he helping the community by supporting one side over the other, especially without any rational basis for doing so?

Lets suppose that he went to Durham with the intention of ensuring justice on behalf of the accuser. Why would he feel the need to do so? We've established that the city had existing racial tension, but was there any indication that this woman was receiving unfair treatment? Was the legal process too slow for Sharpton? If it was too slow, perhaps that was quite justified, considering what we've learned as the situation proceeded. Even if his intentions were lofty as he proclaims, his conduct was still questionable, in my opinion. First, operating under our previous (and rather optimistic) assumptions, he determined that the risk of injustice was so great in Durham that it required his presence. Second, despite very little evidence, he immediately sided with the accuser. Why would he do so? Quite obviously, because she was a black woman in an area he deemed incapable of adequately providing justice for a minority. Third, he proceeded to rally the black community in the area, pitching them against the school and these boys, spreading further the crevasse already existing within the city.


As for the boys learning to respect others, I think its pretty ridiculous to paint an entire athletic organization with such a broad brush. We have little, if any, indication that these boys in particular did anything inappropriate.

You're obviously welcome to start a Nifong thread if you so choose. However, I really haven't heard anyone defending his conduct, so I doubt it would be as interesting."


As soon as the media got wind that criminal charges might have been brought against members of the lacrosse team, strong efforts were made to attack the credibility of the accuser. That was the first rush to judgement in the whole situation. That atmosphere of "trying the victim" is what caused all the unrest in the first place. Think about it-how else would all of these people have known so many details about the party in the first place? The media coverage of this alleged crime (which is not uncommon to college campuses) created the volatility that brought Sharpton and the NAACP down there. Furthermore, Sharpton has been making it clear for quite some time that his organization's presence has to be requested. He doesn't just swoop down all Superman type (usually). So we have to assume that someone or some entity intimately related to the situation requested his assistance. My guess is that the local NAACP chapter made the call, because they knew the national media would follow him as they often do. This is what I was referring to in my initial response to you. Even if that didn't happen the motivation was obviously the same. The feeling in that community was that the privileged, white kids were going to get off light (or get off period) and that the government was not going to take this crime seriously because the alleged victim is a black stripper. This is not an uncommon issue for advocates of victim's rights (all of whom are not black). And I've already mentioned the racial overtones. That's why there were white and black people that appeared to be siding with the victim. There were victim's rights issues and deeply rooted racial tensions at work here. And these issues are still present.

Are you somehow in Al Sharpton's head? Do you know him personally? Why can't you take what he said to be his true reason for being there? I don't find it so hard to believe especially considering his reaction as the DA's conduct became more and more suspect and the case basically disintegrated. What do you say to his statement that he made on his radio show? I'm asking because it's as if you don't acknowledge it at all. I think that it's incredible to continue to paint Al Sharpton with the same brush that you accuse me of using against the lacrosse players. My "brushstroke" is covered with the conduct of its own members (by their own admission) and apparently the media, president of Duke, and some of the student body have their own paintbrushes as well. Go figure.

You are right about one thing. A thread on Nifong would not be as "interesting." Apparently, you guys are just as hell bent on blaming Sharpton for something as some of you claim black people are for blaming white people for all "our" problems. Whatever.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by LegalChef

shinerbock:
"All this aggression should be first directed at the accuser, if we actually believe these boys are innocent.

I read your post, directed at me, which should be sufficient to stand as a basis for my reply. I don't question that racial tension exists in Durham. I question your interpretation that Al Sharpton went down to Durham seeking justice. Simply because he says that is what he accomplished there, doesn't mean his (or your) assertions are in accord with the facts.

Of course the controversy was there prior to him arriving. One can obviously stir and further play on people's emotions during an existing crisis. The fact that there was existing racial tension furthers my concern regarding the way he approached the situation. If racial tension already existed, how is he helping the community by supporting one side over the other, especially without any rational basis for doing so?

Lets suppose that he went to Durham with the intention of ensuring justice on behalf of the accuser. Why would he feel the need to do so? We've established that the city had existing racial tension, but was there any indication that this woman was receiving unfair treatment? Was the legal process too slow for Sharpton? If it was too slow, perhaps that was quite justified, considering what we've learned as the situation proceeded. Even if his intentions were lofty as he proclaims, his conduct was still questionable, in my opinion. First, operating under our previous (and rather optimistic) assumptions, he determined that the risk of injustice was so great in Durham that it required his presence. Second, despite very little evidence, he immediately sided with the accuser. Why would he do so? Quite obviously, because she was a black woman in an area he deemed incapable of adequately providing justice for a minority. Third, he proceeded to rally the black community in the area, pitching them against the school and these boys, spreading further the crevasse already existing within the city.


As for the boys learning to respect others, I think its pretty ridiculous to paint an entire athletic organization with such a broad brush. We have little, if any, indication that these boys in particular did anything inappropriate.

You're obviously welcome to start a Nifong thread if you so choose. However, I really haven't heard anyone defending his conduct, so I doubt it would be as interesting."


As soon as the media got wind that criminal charges might have been brought against members of the lacrosse team, strong efforts were made to attack the credibility of the accuser. That was the first rush to judgement in the whole situation. That atmosphere of "trying the victim" is what caused all the unrest in the first place. Think about it-how else would all of these people have known so many details about the party in the first place? The media coverage of this alleged crime (which is not uncommon to college campuses) created the volatility that brought Sharpton and the NAACP down there. Furthermore, Sharpton has been making it clear for quite some time that his organization's presence has to be requested. He doesn't just swoop down all Superman type (usually). So we have to assume that someone or some entity intimately related to the situation requested his assistance. My guess is that the local NAACP chapter made the call, because they knew the national media would follow him as they often do. This is what I was referring to in my initial response to you. Even if that didn't happen the motivation was obviously the same. The feeling in that community was that the privileged, white kids were going to get off light (or get off period) and that the government was not going to take this crime seriously because the alleged victim is a black stripper. This is not an uncommon issue for advocates of victim's rights (all of whom are not black). And I've already mentioned the racial overtones. That's why there were white and black people that appeared to be siding with the victim. There were victim's rights issues and deeply rooted racial tensions at work here. And these issues are still present.

Are you somehow in Al Sharpton's head? Do you know him personally? Why can't you take what he said to be his true reason for being there? I don't find it so hard to believe especially considering his reaction as the DA's conduct became more and more suspect and the case basically disintegrated. What do you say to his statement that he made on his radio show? I'm asking because it's as if you don't acknowledge it at all. I think that it's incredible to continue to paint Al Sharpton with the same brush that you accuse me of using against the lacrosse players. My "brushstroke" is covered with the conduct of its own members (by their own admission) and apparently the media, president of Duke, and some of the student body have their own paintbrushes as well. Go figure.

You are right about one thing. A thread on Nifong would not be as "interesting." Apparently, you guys are just as hell bent on blaming Sharpton for something as some of you claim black people are for blaming white people for all "our" problems. Whatever.

You're a Sharpton apologist, its quite obvious. Nobody is trying to blame him for everything, as I even said in my post (I noticed you conveniently ignored that). I also noticed you continue to assert broad generalizations against an entire collegiate team. Instead of giving any factual backing to your ridiculous assumptions, you simply throw out "well you did it to Al Sharpton!"

The reason people "paint" Al Sharpton like that is because we have numerous instances where he's acted in this type of manner (Duke, Crown Heights, Bradley...) Thanks for mentioning that white people supported the victim too. Of course, its not relevant, nor does it refute the quite obvious fact that the black community sided early (and unjustifiably) with the black "victim". I'm sure those rallies weren't targeted only towards the black community...perhaps thats why they held them in such inclusive environments (a black university).

I completely disagree that the media was out to discredit the accuser. They noted that her story was rather weak (it was, clearly) and that she was a stripper (she was, clearly). How outrageous! What an absolute travesty it was for the media to not blindly accept someone's (false) accusations as fact!

As I previously stated, feel free to start a thread about Nifong. Of course, it wouldn't be as interesting, as you agree. But if you want, I'll play your role of blindly defending a wrongdoer, and hopefully that'll make it more entertaining for all. For practice, I'll try it out...

"Despite not having support for my arguments, I'll simply label you white people as ignorant, and that way I win the argument. Clearly, because Al Sharpton is black, he can't have done anything wrong, white people are just out to get him. Ignorant, all of you!"

Pretty good, don't you think?

[Rudey]

I think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Charlie Rangel got together and gang raped the hooker from the bad part of Durham. Just because there's no case or evidence against them does not mean they did not commit this crime.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Uhhh . . . wow, are you guys serious?

You really don't see the problem with Sharpton saying "I come to Durham seeking justice"?

Holy crap.

It's spin, ladies and gentlemen - because, even when he's wrong, he can still be "right". Did he throw these boys under the bus? It doesn't matter, because justice prevailed, and that's all he cares about.

How inane.